Invisible Disabilities and Accessibility Challenges

Debate between Martin Whitfield and Bob Stewart

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for that intervention. The Minister will find that one of my requests at the end may make reference to that point.

Let me follow up on what has been said about those who suffer acquired brain injury, as there are many instances where people feel that the person in front of them is drunk and has not suffered an injury. People who have fatigue syndromes are accused of laziness when they ask for a seat. In employment, people with these invisible conditions are often disproportionately discriminated against. Those with neurological conditions such as autism will struggle in a conventional workplace setting, but this is to miss the great opportunity and strength that people with autism can offer in the workplace.

I was interested to hear yesterday from leading charities about the impact of signage, particularly in respect of conditions that affect the functioning of the brain. Signage that vulnerable people can understand works for everybody and will go a long way towards allowing people, particularly those with dementia, to become and to feel more integrated in society. It is such small changes that go a long way towards changing the lives of significant numbers of people.

I stress that I do not want this debate, nor the introduction of new signage, to dilute the need to reform and rearrange the built environment for those who suffer from a physical disability. Wheelchair users and those with mobility challenges face huge obstacles in our society, and this is in no way an attempt to split the two groups. In fact, it is an attempt to bring them together. Whether it is the creation of more accessible homes, the altering of transport infrastructure or the forcing of private companies to improve their surroundings, it is all helpful.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I remember that when I was trained as a dementia friend I was shocked to be informed that sometimes if a person with dementia comes across a dark rug on the floor, they get absolutely petrified because they think it is a hole. When we make public places, we have to realise that we need to be careful when we put down a dark rug or piece of carpet or whatever, because it might look like a hole to someone with dementia, and they are sometimes terrified.

[Martin Whitfield]

That powerful intervention shows that those people who are not suffering from dementia or do not feel that they have a disability need to think about the simple things to make the world and the community accessible to everybody in society.

We have an obligation under article 19 of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We should continue to lead by example. Will the Minister update the House on the work the Government are doing to ensure that the UK continues to meet its international obligations? In particular, how are the Government ensuring that those with invisible disabilities face no barriers to their day-to-day lives? How can we make sure that they can live their lives without facing abuse?

I call on the Minister to support the campaign for an easily understandable disability sign and, crucially, for there to be a standardised version of this sign that truly represents people with a wide range of visible and invisible disabilities. Once we have accepted the layout and design of a new accessible sign, we can start to progress the campaign and to consider how it can be rolled out. On that point, will the Minister consult colleagues across Government to explore the possibility of implementing such signage on our blue badge parking and disability railcards? People with a range of invisible disabilities are entitled to hold those passes. It would be a symbolic and practical change to the lives of those with such conditions if Government literature reflected the use of the new sign. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to one further meeting with me and colleagues to discuss how we can move the matter forward.

Christmas Adjournment

Debate between Martin Whitfield and Bob Stewart

Thursday 20th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, in these unusual surroundings. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring that the debate took place today. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I would like to associate myself with his comments regarding our Jewish colleagues, friends, family and communities across the United Kingdom, both for the remaining part of this year and in the future.

I hope to talk about a number of matters, including one which was brought to my attention this morning and which raises great concern. I heard today that the RZSS WildGenes laboratory at Edinburgh Zoo has said that in all probability the Scottish wildcat is now extinct as a gene pool. The gene pool of one of the most endangered wild mammals in the world, which resides in Scotland in very small numbers, is now so affected by the domestic cat that it cannot be identified separately. The only gene pool we have is in approximately 100 Scottish wildcats that are in captivity. With the enormous challenges that face this country and the world, it is interesting to look at one small aspect, in this case an animal that lives in the United Kingdom, was far more widespread in past decades and is now literally extinct in the wild. If the follow-up tests that are currently being done confirm this, it would be truly tragic news.

As we approach Christmas, it is a salutary lesson to think that in the United Kingdom we were asked to take care of a mammalian group and we have managed to do that so badly that it has fallen into extinction. We look at the giant panda, the tiger and the elephant—all of which rightly require care—and yet we may have let one of the most important and unique groups of animals slip into extinction on our own doorstep. I find that very saddening, but I compliment Edinburgh Zoo on the work that it does.

[Bob Stewart]

One of the great things about these debates is that we always learn something—I had no idea about the information that the hon. Gentleman has given us about the iconic Scottish bobcat. I am still a bit unclear; is he saying that the Scottish bobcat is still there in the wild, but has mated with domestic cats and become a sort of mixture of the two? In other words, does it remain in the wild, not as a bobcat but as something mutated?

[Martin Whitfield]

A more succinct description I could not give. The gene pool is now so diluted that individual Scottish wildcats that have been caught and tested in the wild are almost impossible to distinguish from domestic cats. That is the nature of cats generally, but it is disappointing that we have reached that stage. The only gene pool with a guarantee of wildcat status exists in the 100 or so that are kept in zoos and wildlife parks around the world.

I thank the teachers and teaching staff of East Lothian and those who work for East Lothian Council, as well as the pupils who have done so much this year, such as those at North Berwick High School who held a UN model assembly at which schools from around Scotland gathered to debate important matters. It was a great privilege to go into what were effectively committee sittings and listen to highly intelligent and articulate young people discussing such important matters—indeed, some of their ideas and proposals merit consideration in this House. I feel very hopeful for the future and for politicians to come. At primary schools I have visited, children have asked questions that I just could not answer; I had to do the honest thing and tell them that I did not know, but would go and find out.

I want to mention people who have invisible disabilities, and the work of Grace, a campaigner from Prestonpans in East Lothian who created Grace’s Sign. I also want to mention Judith Dunn, whom I invited to Parliament on #AskHerToStand day. It was such a wonderful day: so many women came from all around the country, and it speaks so positively of what we can achieve.

The Civil Nuclear Constabulary is a strange and almost unknown group of police officers who protect our nuclear establishments, but who are separate from the police force and are a civilian group. They are the armed backup to our police forces. They have been in a pension dispute for a long while now; I was able to ask a question about it this morning in business questions. This Government have kicked down the road the question of their pension settlement and when they can retire. I had hoped that for this Christmas they would have had a present of knowing what was going to happen to them; I sincerely hope that by next Christmas they have an understanding.

I wanted to talk about universal credit, which has been in my constituency since 2016. We are not a constituency where it is being rolled out; we were one of the test beds. East Lothian reflects the statistical make-up of the United Kingdom and particularly Scotland very accurately, so it was a test bed for universal credit, and it has not gone well. We have problems with universal credit that go beyond that roll-out. It was a great pleasure to hear hon. Members making points earlier about the significant difficulties where there are two payments in one month and then nothing follows in the next month, and the pressure that that brings to bear on families and individuals. Other people are persuaded—I use that word carefully—by advice from the Department for Work and Pensions to set up their own business and then, 11 or 12 months down the line, are let down by the very system that persuaded them to set up their own business because their earnings are such that they suddenly lose their benefits.

I want to talk about the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Many women in my constituency, who are well through their administrative complaints procedure, have received a letter that their case is now being stopped because of the High Court case to allow the judicial review. My understanding is that that letter is incorrect and actually all that has happened is that their case has been postponed until the outcome of the hearing. However, again, it is an indication of how communication from the Government to our constituents is so far from being clear and understandable that it brings more challenges.

With only 99 days to go, however, I want to spend two minutes mentioning the real threat of a no deal. It has come up before and I fear it will come up again, but it needs to come up for a reason. I asked the Prime Minister who she would blame if there was no deal, and she indicated that it would be Parliament’s responsibility. It may well, in one view of it, be Parliament’s responsibility, but the Government are the Executive, with the power to ensure that that does not happen.

I can talk about the announcement today that the word “unlikely” has been dropped from the preparation notes that have been issued. I can talk about the 3,500 troops who have been placed on standby, the cut to any holiday requests from 1 April, the reversion to World Trade Organisation rules, the fact that we do not have an immigration policy that can come in in just over six weeks’ time, the fact that the problem at the Irish border will not be resolved by then and the bottom-line forecast that no deal will be an economic disaster into the future.

Some people have suggested that it is a ruse—that it will never happen. Some people have said, “It could well happen. We don’t know.” Some people have said, “Oh, don’t worry about it,” and some people have said, “Everything will be fine.” People see many versions of the future, but I know it rests with the Prime Minister and within the power of the Government to say, “No deal won’t happen.” I disagree vehemently with leaving the European Union, as do my constituents, but putting that political decision to one side, I find the executive decision about whether to put the country in a position where it will leave with no deal saddening, upsetting, annoying and frustrating. I also find it—I choose this word carefully—irresponsible, and I would expect far, far more of any Government of the United Kingdom.

At Christmas, I urge that the risk of no deal be removed so that we can move on in whatever way suits the United Kingdom. That will remove the fear. As the children said to me at a high school when I asked them about Europe, “But it’s our future.” It is their future. I am not asking to stay in Europe or for a people’s vote, both of which would be brilliant; I am saying, “Please remove this option, which has no agreement across the House.” For whatever reason it is still on the table, but it is the one thing that should be removed.

I wish everyone a very happy Christmas and a very peaceful and prosperous new year.

Banking Sector Failures

Debate between Martin Whitfield and Bob Stewart

Thursday 12th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered failures in the banking sector.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship and guidance, Mr Bone, as we find ourselves gathered to discuss the banking situation. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this debate and the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) for co-sponsoring it.

On 10 May, I was proud to lead a main Chamber debate, in which I raised the section 166 report and called for full redress for the victims of profound financial misconduct. Today’s motion is deliberately phrased more broadly, to enable us to reflect our constituents’ many frustrations with the banking industry. I am therefore glad that we have been given a significant amount of time to discuss this issue. There will be a diverse range of submissions from Members who wish to discuss their constituency matters.

The all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and hon. Members from across the House recognise that work is continuing within the industry, and with UK Finance and the Financial Conduct Authority, to drive higher standards and accountability. Hard lines need to be drawn so that we can not only solve the ongoing disputes, but prevent another conduct crisis in the future. It is our firm and unwavering position that things have not changed sufficiently to prevent the abuses of power we continue to see in the financial services industry and the surrounding supporting professional sectors and service areas of law, valuation, Law of Property Act receivership and insolvency. The APPG will focus on those areas with renewed vigour in the coming months.

Hon. Members and the APPG engage regularly with UK Finance and the FCA, and we see a genuine will to drive higher standards in the industry. We look forward to continuing to work together, and we appreciate the forthright relationship we have developed. UK Finance, in particular, has shown itself to be an industry leader, and we sincerely hope it challenges the industry to be the best it can be.

I want to focus on the banking industry’s failure to support small businesses, and on the erosion of trust between such businesses and banks. Small and medium-sized enterprises are pivotal to the UK economy. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy highlights that they constitute 99.9% of businesses operating in Britain. They bring in £1.8 trillion in annual turnover and employ just over 60% of people in the private sector. They are the lifeblood of our nation’s economy, but worryingly, the critical bond of trust between them and business banking has never been lower.

From payment protection insurance complaints to the HBOS Reading fraud and the toxic culture at the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Global Restructuring Group, the industry has systematically failed small business across the UK. I want to discuss the attitude towards small business owners, the devastating impact of past misconduct, and the future.

I have spoken to small business owners, and the foundation of the problem is often simple access to finance—a problem highlighted by bank closures. Beyond the bricks and mortar of local banks lies a bond of trust between the business owner, the financial adviser and the bank manager. Since 2015, we have lost or are due to lose banks in Prestonpans, Tranent, Gullane, North Berwick and Dunbar in East Lothian. The inhabitants of those towns have lost their connection to a local banking service. The issue disproportionately affects Scottish consumers. Between 2015 and the end of this year, 368 branches will have closed in Scotland. For the 20 million people who still rely on face-to-face banking services, that is devastating.

Ferhan Ashiq, a local entrepreneur in East Lothian, has talked about some of the provisions he has had to use since the closure. He described them as painful. He has had to make a transition to alternative banking solutions, and he does not feel that enough resources are available for business owners who still rely on cash-based operations. Like many in East Lothian, he is unimpressed by the replacement bus bank service that rolls into town twice a week. The service is not fully accessible or reliable. Indeed, the very first day it was due to go to Dunbar, it failed to attend because it broke down. That is testimony to the fact that we should perhaps not believe everything we read on the side of a bus.

The effect has been that alternative funding sources have been developed, such as crowdfunding, which my constituent uses; peer-to-peer lending, which is facilitated by the Funding Circle—a firm that has created and sustained 19 jobs in East Lothian in the past 12 months—cyber-currencies; and even local stock exchanges. If we look at the history of banking, although the technology has changed, our main banks—I will not use the phrase “high street banks”, because it is becoming something of a misnomer—have followed the same pattern. They started with peer-to-peer lending and friends chipping in. Just as protection became necessary and our banks became more structured, so the world of alternative funding needs structure to its regulation and an understanding. It is not for the banks to provide that; it is for the Government to regulate so that confidence can continue to grow and develop, and not be challenged in those new alternative sources of funding, as it has been in traditional banking.

I turn to the ongoing conduct issues and our call for a full public inquiry into the treatment of businesses under financial duress. Recently, we have seen leaked reports from RBS and HBOS. There are ongoing issues with how Clydesdale bank and Yorkshire bank aggressively mis-sold interest rate hedging products and fixed-rate loans, which contained astronomical break costs. Those loans caused widespread financial distress. Rather than supporting businesses and putting things right, the banks sold the loans on to a private equity firm, Cerebus, and washed their hands of any responsibility for the damage that was caused. The consequences of those actions are still ongoing for many people. Bankruptcies and evictions from family homes are going on as we speak.

The Treasury Committee and the FCA have said on many occasions that there is work to be done if businesses are to continue to thrive and move forward. We very much look forward to the publication of the Treasury Committee’s SME finance inquiry report. The industry recommendations in the section 166 report into RBS highlighted key issues that the APPG on fair business banking has been raising for years. The report talks about unfair contracts, with contractual terms that are there to confuse customers. The Lending Standards Board has produced principles for lending contracts, and the APPG has set up a contracts working group to ensure that bank contracts match the public promise. We welcome the involvement and participation of financial firms in that.

The section 166 report also talks about the relationship between banks and third-party providers. There are consistent conflicts of interest. For example, insolvency practitioners and surveyors are motivated to work in the interests of the bank, rather than the business. That issue has been raised a number of times in debates, and with the insolvency service, banks and BEIS.

To make it crystal clear, the same mechanisms that were used by HBOS Reading, RBS GRG and Dunbar Bank, to name just a few, have not vanished, but are still being used today. There has not been a substantive change to prevent the systematic asset-stripping that was highlighted in the Turnbull report and the section 166 report on RBS GRG. Indeed, we still see cases on a weekly basis that demonstrate that the systems are still in place.

The right hon. and hon. Members who are members of the APPG are very clear that we need a comprehensive inquiry into turnaround practices, insolvency and financial institutions. The fact that HBOS Reading and RBS GRG were able to go on for so long indicates that there is a systematic failure, and we must learn lessons. The Government produced an excellent consultation on the review of the corporate insolvency framework back in 2016, and we encourage them to continue with that reform of insolvency, which is a key priority.

In the debate on 10 May, I raised the section 166 report, and called for full redress for those who have been victims of profound financial misconduct. I do not want to go over previous ground, but I want to highlight the impact of financial misconduct on working families, businesses and individuals, and the importance of redressing those profound losses.

The release report on RBS GRG not only underlined the toxic culture that existed but, critically, identified the systemic failures that allowed it to thrive. Banking misconduct is a broad term that will no doubt be discussed by Members today. I want to stress, however, that for business owners across the country who have lost their livelihoods, their homes and their marriages, and more often than not have suffered in their health, this is not past misconduct; this greets them every single day when they wake up and is with them when they go to bed every night to try to sleep. It haunts them. The impact of the scandal has been so profoundly damaging that people have taken the appalling decision to end their life because they cannot face any more.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What really upsets me is that the people who lead those banks seem to have no honour, no decency. Where is the banking code? Where is the way in which bankers should look after their customers? It does not seem to be present at all. That is heartbreaking.

[Martin Whitfield]

The hon. Gentleman makes a profound contribution. Our financial system is based on trust; our friendships are based on trust. Trust is how it started, and the present conduct of individuals within banks and the present systemic conduct of banks fracture that trust. That means we have lost something, because once trust is lost it cannot be got back—trust is given by someone but not necessarily offered again. The responsibility of this House and of financial services—this is genuinely the responsibility of everyone—is to ensure that we have answers to those questions so that at last, I hope, some people and some families find some peace and closure about events that have haunted their lives.

If I may, I draw attention to the Centre for Policy Studies’ report, “Fair Business Banking for All”, which was launched last night with the APPG. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for authoring the report and the APPG for supporting its publication and for an excellent night. Among many things, it recommends the establishment of a financial services tribunal not dissimilar to the employment tribunal system.

I am aware that the report’s proposals to enhance the legal rights of SMEs would require primary legislation, but some steps towards it would not. One recommendation is to redefine a “private person” under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Rights of Action) Regulations 2001. A small change, the extension of the definition of a private person to cover SMEs, would allow them to take action where now they cannot do so. An extension to cover insolvent firms, many rendered insolvent by the poor conduct of banks and financial subsidiaries, would give those SMEs—and the people who are the reality behind the company—a right of action when Financial Conduct Authority rules are breached.

The last recommendation of the report is about time limits, when companies have the extra hurdle under the limitation Acts of a six or five-year period, depending on whether they are based in England and Wales, or Scotland. The limitation can frequently be overcome, but it is simply another example of how barriers are placed in the way of those who feel the greatest sense of injustice. I fully support the recommendations of the report, notably the enhancement of SME rights.

I know that the Minister is aware of and appreciates the feelings across constituencies about this matter. I ask for his comments on the following matters. Even if we are dealing with the systemic failure of our banks and banking system, we still require a full and open inquiry to understand that failure. That inquiry would benefit financial institutions, the business community and certainly the wider economy. More than that, it would bring transparency and light to the people who have suffered. The inquiry might start to provide closure for individuals who have for too long battled against the Lernaean hydra that is the financial industry. A public inquiry would establish the facts. It would allow the industry to learn from past events, offer reconciliation and re-establish accountability after a scandal that gripped financial institutions not only in our country but globally.

First, therefore, will the Minister support cross-Bench calls for a full public inquiry? I realise that it is a big ask and will require a considered response, but it would be a positive step if he could at least support a joint cross-departmental taskforce to identify the extent of banking failings—impact, regulatory failings, missed opportunities —to get to the root cause of the problem and its future impacts. Such groundwork would not only be important in itself but could act as a foundation for a public inquiry.

Furthermore, on 10 May, the Minister who has joined us today—I apologise for quoting him in this—said:

“I am meeting Andrew Bailey regularly, and I hope that the FCA will conclude its investigation soon, by which I mean in the next eight to 12 weeks. As I mentioned in our debate on this topic in January, I do not wish to complicate the matter further or prejudice any outcomes while the FCA is investigating, but I am very clear that I expect it to conclude its investigations in a very short timeframe.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 979.]

Today it is exactly nine weeks since that assurance. I also ask for adequate funding and expertise in the investigation of financial fraud. Part of the imbalance in power in the system comes from the reality that the expertise needed to investigate those claims is expensive and in short supply.

I fear that the banking industry has developed a worrying culture that has facilitated a breakdown in trust between that industry and business owners throughout the country. The culture is rooted in institutional misdemeanours but exacerbated by the closure of high street banks and the loss of ATMs. We need a new banking settlement to ensure that business owners in all areas of the country have access to local banking services. Those same customers must also be given an assurance that they can trust the banking hubs and, if the trust breaks down, a tribunal will act as an investigator and a way of re-establishing it.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, which needs a trustworthy banking system to support and help SMEs to prosper. The economy is at the foundation of our society, and our society demands more from its banking system, from its financial services and—in reality—from its Government. I repeat a phrase that I have used in previous debates: the victims are not going to go away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

This is the third or fourth debate in which I have spoken in support of people running SMEs who have been utterly shafted—that is not too strong a word—by some banks. It is clear that quite a few SMEs are being denied justice in their many financial services disputes. I am amazed that that has not been fixed by now.

I have spoken up for my constituent Dean D’Eye and his family and friends, who have been terrorised by insolvency professionals working for the Global Restructuring Group and Dunbar bank. Mr D’Eye had his life’s work taken away from him. He had a development company in south London with a value of £140 million, as well as a thriving youth hostel business that employed more than 100 people. He was robbed of them by banks working like pirates. It is simply appalling that they have been allowed to get away with it.

I will not repeat the D’Eye family’s experience, which is already on the record, but it is instrumental in guiding the way I look at this issue. How can it be that our entrepreneurs are so badly served by some banks? There should be a healthy, supportive relationship between them, but sometimes that loyalty goes only one way. Some banks—not all of them—extort their SME customers in an incredibly predatory way. Some clearly have no humanity, no understanding and no common decency.

In the end, SMEs sometimes must take legal action against banks. Of course, they cannot match the legal armies banks put into the field against them. They simply do not have the resources, particularly as those very same banks have so often raided their accounts and taken moneys without their leave. We have a good—perhaps a great—justice system, but far too often SMEs simply do not have the money to access it.

I have read, and completely support and endorse the report by the co-chair of the all-party group on fair business banking, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). As suggested in the Hollinrake report—I do not think I am breaking the rules by calling it that—it is right and proper to extend to SMEs the right to take action under section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

As many people present realise, the only way for an SME to get independent resolution of a financial dispute is to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service or seek legal redress. However, the Financial Ombudsman Service’s powers for SMEs are small and, as I have explained, taking a legal route can be extremely costly. In truth, the Financial Ombudsman Service is not set up to deal with SMEs. The system needs to be revisited and adapted so that it can deal with them.

There is also a gap right now between the Financial Ombudsman Service and the courts that needs to be sorted out. One way to do that, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) mentioned, would be to establish a new financial services tribunal specifically to help protect and guide SMEs. That is also recommended in the Hollinrake report. I totally support that idea, as I think everyone in the Chamber does.

[Martin Whitfield]

Just to confirm, there is discussion about extending the authority and powers of the Financial Ombudsman Service, but even then 30,000 SMEs would still fall outside of it. A tribunal would even out the battleground between them and the banks.

[Bob Stewart]

How long would it take to sort out 30,000 SMEs?

We are all clear about the importance of a thriving SME sector, run by entrepreneurs with leadership, drive and determination. Almost everyone who has spoken has mentioned it, and we all agree. It is up to us, as legislators, to ensure that such people—the lifeblood of the prosperity of our nation—are fully supported by a banking infrastructure designed to help them, not screw them. In far too many instances that does not happen, and it is utterly disgraceful. It must be sorted out. Please, God, can Parliament sort it out?

I have the utmost respect and regard for the Minister, who is an incredibly good friend. I hope he can get his officials cracking to sort out this matter with immediate effect, because it is a bloody national disgrace.