Debt Collection Letters

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the content of debt collection letters.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I have been working with the charity the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute. I sit on its advisory board, along with hon. Members from other parties, including the hon. Members for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). It was set up in 2016 by Martin Lewis from Money Saving Expert. Money and Mental Health has been conducting valuable research into the link between financial difficulty and mental ill health, and leading campaigns to bring about reform where it identifies a problem.

The link between debt and mental ill health is striking. People with mental health problems are three times more likely to be in problem debt as those without mental health problems. Half of adults in problem debt have a mental health problem. Research by Money and Mental Health found that in England each year, more than 100,000 people in problem debt attempt to take their own life and more than 420,000 people in debt consider suicide. This is an incredibly serious issue.

Several factors contribute to that link between financial difficulty and mental ill health, but one important issue—the subject of this debate—is debt collection letters. They are written in a way that can make people feel that there is no way out of their financial problems, sometimes leading to disastrous and fatal consequences. I will give a couple of brief case studies.

Paul lives with bipolar. Throughout his life he has suffered from mental ill health, which has been compounded by debt problems. When he was on a high, he would go out on spending sprees funded by loans; during periods of depression, he would struggle to pay his bills and often spend money to make himself feel better—it was a sort of escape from the nightmare and trauma he was going through.

Paul said that being hounded by creditors left him feeling trapped and helpless. He tragically made attempts on his own life. Like so many others in debt, Paul received letters from lenders, which are intimidating, often written in complex language and can feature threats of court action right at the top, very prominently. Sometimes people receive such letters from multiple lenders on a daily basis, leaving them feeling trapped in the nightmare engulfing them. Paul says,

“the letters that you get from creditors are horrendous. They were like someone standing in front of me with a knife, so I wanted to get rid of them. I’d just put them straight in the bin or burn them…You feel trapped by your debt, and that you can’t get out—that’s what can drive people to feel suicidal”.

Thankfully, Paul is now in a much better place with support from his family.

I have witnessed people who, when confronted by letters demanding payment, hide away and do not confront the problem, because of the state of their mental health. Sometimes they put letters into cupboards, hoping that the problem will go away. Of course, it does not go away and in many cases the debt escalates, making the situation even worse.

Jerome Rogers sadly took his own life at the age of 20 after receiving two £65 traffic fines, which escalated to £1,000 of debt after the council passed on his debt to aggressive bailiffs. Jerome’s mother Tracey believes that a big factor in his death was a combination of the threatening bailiffs who came to the door and the intimidating letters he received from lenders. Tracey says that if the letters had not been so frightening and Jerome had been able to get the right support when he needed it, he would still be here today. That is one life tragically lost, but there will be many others.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman gave two powerful examples. This is reality. This is life. People are getting these letters and thinking about committing suicide. After a decade of austerity, things are not improving. Does he agree that it is time that the Government gave new guidelines to stop these letters coming through the door and threatening people? We need to examine this more and I therefore welcome this debate.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman goes to the heart of what I am proposing. I will expand on the point he made.

Debt collection letters, like the ones received by Paul and Jerome, often include complex text, which is capitalised and put in bold. The language can be intimidating to someone experiencing mental ill health. The letters often start with threats of court action. They do contain advice—the purpose is well meaning in terms of the legislative requirements.

However, the wording they are required to use is inaccurate and out of date. It was devised before free debt advice was widely available. Recipients are told to get help from a solicitor, from their local trading standards department or a citizens advice bureau. However, trading standards can only help someone when a company’s behaviour is illegal, not in an ordinary civil situation. Therefore, that advice, in wording required by the Government, is inaccurate and should not be there.

The idea that someone in problem debt should be told in official advice to seek out a solicitor is outdated and frankly ridiculous for many people who would just assume that going to a solicitor is impossible, due to the cost involved. The advice is so out of date because, outrageously, the content of these letters is dictated by legislation that has not been updated for decades. Lenders are legally obliged to include certain pieces of prescribed content, as is laid out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983.

The Money and Mental Health Policy Institute’s “Stop the #DebtThreats” campaign calls on the Government to amend the Consumer Credit Act and the associated regulations, to put a stop to the threatening letters. First, the Government should change the prescribed content of lenders’ letters, exactly as the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) suggested. The Government should make these letters more accessible, easier to understand and clearer for people in problem debt.

If the Minister is tempted to say that he is supportive of the principle involved here, but it involves a comprehensive review of the Consumer Credit Act and the whole thing will take a long time, I do not buy it. There is clearly a case for a review of the primary legislation, but the wording of the letter, which is out of date and inappropriate, could be changed quickly through regulations. There is a real danger that we overcomplicate this. Those regulations could be made in a straightforward way quickly, pending a wider review of how we deal with these issues. One sensible idea is to refer the matter across to the Financial Conduct Authority. The step could be taken immediately to get rid of the inappropriate and inaccurate prescribed wording, which simply should not be there and makes things more difficult for people.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that putting the threat of court action first puts people off reading the rest of the letter? What should be first is the fact that help is available for people to get debt advice, and that it does not have to be face to face—advice is available online and on the telephone. There is a wide range of support that was not there before, which needs to be highlighted.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The guidance we had from organisations before the debate makes the point that the letters are often lengthy. People in a state of anxiety and distress will give up reading something complex before they reach the helpful advice, which might be right at the end. There needs to be clear information up front about seeking advice. It is in the interest of the creditor to refer people to that advice straightaway and put it up front, and the Government’s prescribed wording could require that, which is what we are calling for.

There is also a danger that the Minister might say, “People nowadays can just google it and get access to good advice online,” but when people google for debt advice, the options at the top of the list are for paid-for advice, which is inappropriate. The information that people need should be in the prescribed wording of the letters that creditors have to send. The Government could do something about that quickly.

The Government should stipulate that creditors should signpost people to sources of support, which is really important, as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) said. People should be directed to the free specialist debt advice provided by charities such as StepChange and Citizens Advice. Exactly as she said, that should be at the start of the letter and should take precedence over threats of court action. Jerome’s mother Tracey and Paul are backing the “Stop the #DebtThreats” campaign.

Last week, the Treasury Committee made a welcome intervention in its report “Consumers’ access to financial services”, which recommended that the Government amend the relevant legislation and reform the content of debt collection letters. It also recommended that debt collection letters contain

“a form of words that would be clear and understandable for an individual with a low level of literacy”,

and that the Government

“mandate the inclusion—with equal prominence to the demand for payment—of information within such requests of how an individual can seek help with their debts.”

The pressure on the Treasury is mounting and we hope that there will be a constructive response. We are calling on the Government to amend the legislation and regulations that govern the content of debt letters. As I said earlier, they should do what is necessary, which they can do quickly by making the wording on the letters more helpful and by getting rid of the inappropriate and inaccurate wording, and then look to wider reform later.

As I indicated, another way to achieve change in the longer run would be to delegate the control of debt letter content requirements to the Financial Conduct Authority. There is an opportunity here, as the FCA recently completed a statutory review of the Consumer Credit Act, which acknowledged several concerns about the rules on content. The review highlighted the possibility of the FCA taking control of and updating the rules. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that suggestion.

Debt collection letters from lenders are just one of many problems that people in financial difficulties face. I also support an initiative that proposes bailiff regulation, which has been put together by the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). We and other hon. Members have signed a joint letter to the Minister with responsibility for bailiffs to call for the behaviour of bailiffs to be regulated.

The behaviour of bailiffs is another key problem for people in debt, as Jerome Rogers experienced. According to Citizens Advice, more than 100,000 people have had bailiff-related problems in the last 12 months, which is an increase of 16% from the previous year. Some 40% of Citizens Advice clients with issues about bailiffs also had some sort of health condition, including mental ill health, but they often faced completely inappropriate behaviour by bailiffs. In its briefing for the debate, Citizens Advice highlights a number of highly inappropriate actions by bailiffs that have come to its attention.

The argument is that there needs to be a regulator for bailiffs, alongside reform to the wording of the letters. We believe that the Minister can act quickly and I hope that he will give a constructive response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb]

I appreciate the Minister’s constructive response. As an ex-lawyer, I think it is perfectly possible to address the real mischief here by adapting the letter using more constructive and up-to-date wording without undermining the broader objectives of the 1974 Act.

[John Glen]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly reiterates the challenge, and I take it on. At this point, I should also mention the reference he made to the work of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) on bailiffs. There is absolutely no excuse for aggressive tactics from enforcement agents, and that is why the Ministry of Justice has launched a call for evidence, looking at the need for an independent regulator. The call closed in February 2019 and the Government will respond in the summer. I am meeting with the relevant Justice Minister just after the recess to press for robust action, so that is very much on my agenda as well. I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s portrayal of how deeply wrong some of those behaviours are.

Clydesdale Bank and SMEs

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I have set out the expanded remit and role of the ombudsman service and the extension of the money that can be provided. I have also set out the engagement I have had with UK Finance on historical cases. I respectfully say to him that these are very early days—it is only two months since this decision was made, and I look forward to seeing urgent progress.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on asking this important question. Along with effective dispute resolution, a properly functioning banking and financial services sector that commands the trust of the British people relies on brave individuals who are prepared to blow the whistle on wrongdoing within the institutions where they work. Does the Minister agree that it has become increasingly clear that we need enhanced protection so that people feel able to speak out and a regulator that is prepared to stand up for, support and protect whistleblowers when the going gets tough?

[John Glen]

I recognise that we need in the Financial Conduct Authority and the PRA regulators that are able to take appropriate action in a timely way to deal with disputes where they have responsibility. I have regular conversations with the FCA and encourage it to look at different matters. I will obviously be concerned about how the expanded ombudsman service and the redress mechanism work, and nothing is ruled out in the future.

Social Media and Screen Use: Young People’s Health

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now come to the first of today’s Select Committee statements. Mr Norman Lamb will speak—

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry; I have to give a little explanation, as these matters are still fairly new to the House, so we will make sure that we get the procedure correct. Mr Norman Lamb will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Mr Lamb to respond to these in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions, and should be brief. Front Benchers may, if they so wish, take part in this questioning.

[Norman Lamb]

I rise to make a statement on our report on the impact of social media and screen use on young people’s health. Before I cover our key findings, I want to pay tribute to Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, who tragically took her own life. The decision of Ian Russell to speak out and raise concerns about what Molly saw online, through Instagram, has had a profound impact in raising public consciousness of the potential risks, but also in galvanising the debate and the call for action to ensure that children are protected from harm.

I thank the 174 organisations and individuals who provided us with written evidence, and the 37 individuals who gave oral evidence. I am particularly grateful to all the young people who took part in our survey and told us of their experiences of using social media. We received over 3,000 responses from schools across the UK, which was amazing. This is an evidence-based report, and it would not have been possible without the input of all those people. I thank the parliamentary outreach and education services for facilitating the responses from schools. I would also like to thank the brilliant team who support the Science and Technology Committee in the work we do.

Throughout our inquiry, we heard repeatedly that children no longer make a distinction between the online and offline worlds. The boundaries between the two have become blurred. In 2015, almost a quarter of 15-year-olds in the UK spent six hours a day or more online outside school, and much of that time was spent on social media. At its best, social media can be a positive, transformative force in a young person’s life. It is a way of keeping in touch with friends and of connecting instantaneously with people across the world from different backgrounds. Crucially, it has given many young people an opportunity for their voice to be heard on the issues that they care most about.

At its worst, however, social media has been linked to cyber-bullying, grooming, sexting and the promotion of harmful information and behaviours. Those risks are not new and they are not caused by social media. We are clear throughout our report that social media can act both to amplify and to facilitate those risks. For example, we heard how bullying no longer stops at the school gate. Instead, it finds its way into children’s homes via social media, sometimes taking place in front of a large online audience.

Frustratingly, we do not have a good enough understanding of the scale of the problem—be it cyber-bullying via social media or grooming—nor do we have robust academic evidence of the relationship between the use of social media by young people and its effect on their health. That is not an acceptable situation. It cannot be right that we do not yet have a good grasp of who is at risk of experiencing harm from using social media and why, or of the longer-term consequences of that exposure on children.

Social media is, of course, still a young research field, but the more pressing problem is that researchers lack access to key data on social media and its use. That valuable data is held by social media companies. It has the potential to provide the types of insights that are so clearly needed, yet social media companies have not readily shared it with bona fide researchers. It is deeply disappointing that we continue to grapple around in the dark on this issue when the answers could be forthcoming.

In our report, we call on social media companies to make anonymised high-level data available for research purposes to bona fide researchers, while also respecting data protection principles. We also stress that the Government should consider what legislation needs to be in place to make that happen. Incidentally, I very much welcome the chief medical officer’s report today and her call for access to data for research, which matches the Committee’s call. I also very much welcome her guidance to parents and others.

The lack of good-quality academic evidence does not give us a licence simply to sit back and do nothing. We heard repeatedly from parents, carers, teachers and children themselves that they were worried about the detrimental effects of social media. Arguably, we have waited far too long for social media companies to step up to the plate and address the risks that their platforms facilitate. Successive voluntary codes of practice and guidance have not delivered effective protection for children online.

Legislative progress, too, has been patchy and achingly slow. Most online content is still subject to little or no specific regulation, creating, in effect, a “standards lottery”, as the regulator, Ofcom, has described it. Change is long overdue. Sometimes the opportunity to enact vital changes feels infuriatingly out of reach. I hope that will not be the case on this occasion. The Government’s forthcoming online harms White Paper, with the prospect of legislation to follow, presents a crucial opportunity to put a world-leading regulatory framework in place. This chance must not be squandered.

First and foremost, a principles-based regulatory regime for social media companies should be introduced in the forthcoming parliamentary Session. The regime should apply to any site with registered UK users. At the core of this new regime must be the principle that social media companies have a duty of care towards their users who are under 18. In essence, that means that children must be protected from harm when accessing and using social media sites. It should be achieved through social media companies acting with reasonable care to avoid identified harms. If enacted, it would be a powerful, game-changing step, and it is one that my Committee urges the Government to take.

Social media companies must also be far more open and transparent in how they operate and particularly how they moderate, review and prioritise content. To achieve that, the Government should introduce a statutory code of practice for social media companies to provide consistency on content reporting practices. This will require primary legislation. We were particularly encouraged by the German example of the Government setting a clear 24-hour timeframe in which social media companies must respond to reports of potentially illegal content. A similar approach should be put in place in the UK.

To uphold the new regime, a regulator should be appointed by the end of October 2019. We believe that Ofcom, working alongside the Information Commissioner’s Office, is well placed to perform this role. Ofcom should not only monitor compliance with the proposed code of practice, but have the necessary teeth to take enforcement action when warranted. Enforcement actions must be backed by a strong and effective sanctions regime. Consideration should be given to whether directors ought to be held personally liable.

Finally, the digital literacy and resilience of children, as well as of their teachers and parents, must be improved. Young people in particular must be equipped with the skills that they need to navigate and assess what they are seeing on social media and beyond. To achieve this, personal, social, health and economic education must soon be made mandatory by the Government for both primary and secondary school pupils. It should deliver an age-appropriate understanding of the harms and benefits of the digital world.

I want to finish on an optimistic note. I am encouraged by the sheer amount of interest in and the work that is currently being undertaken on this matter, which is occurring both inside and outside Government. What we need now is action—effective action in the form of new primary legislation that brings forward a robust regulatory regime, underpinned by strong sanctions. What we do not need is more toothless voluntary codes that can be ignored by social media companies.

Success depends on sustained leadership and commitment from the Government, even when it is difficult. At the core of this, there needs to be a legal duty of care, with the clear understanding that there are consequences for their actions if social media companies fail to protect children. Without leadership and perseverance, the worst that social media has to offer will continue to blight the lives of children. This must not be tolerated.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

I thank the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee for coming to the House and making a statement, and other members of the Committee for their work. I welcome this report. It is a fantastic piece of work, and I look forward to researching the issue in more detail. Did the right hon. Gentleman consider the concerning and tragic case of the teenager, Molly Russell, who allegedly took her own life after viewing images on Instagram? Did the Committee consider the concerning issue of social media companies that will not release the data concerning a young person who has died, possibly as a result of images that have been seen in that way, and did it form a view on what should be done?

[Norman Lamb]

Molly Russell’s father, Ian Russell, spoke out after we completed our report, and what he said about the experience of his daughter is central to our recommendations. There must be much greater transparency, as well as mechanisms to ensure that the very harmful materials that Molly saw on Instagram do not come in front of children online. Children must be protected from such harm, and the hon. Lady is right to highlight that issue.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve on the Committee chaired by the right hon. Gentleman, especially with regard to this report. I wholly agree with its conclusions, but draw particular importance to the point about data access, which is vital for future knowledge, as well as the duty of care. Does he agree that our conclusions about parental engagement are of equal importance? Parents have a key role to play in empowering their children and giving them resilience online, but they themselves need huge support to educate their children. The onus is therefore on Governments across the United Kingdom to ensure that parents have the right remedies, right knowledge, and right access to information to be able to educate their children and protect them online.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, which I entirely share as I enjoy working on the Committee with him. He is right to highlight the need for guidance and advice from the parents’ perspective, which is why I welcome the chief medical officer’s report today. One thing she highlights, which is potentially uncomfortable for us all, is the fact that children report being concerned about parents who use social media in front of their children, rather than engaging with them. In a way that makes the point that we all have a responsibility. The Government have to act, because the time for legislation is long overdue, but as we grapple to cope with the social revolution that has happened over the past five years, we as a society all have a responsibility.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on this incredibly important report, which complements some of the work done by the Education Committee. Does he support the request made to the Chairman of Ways and Means to make arrangements to question Ministers in Westminster Hall, in order to test how joined up the Government are in tackling the serious problems that he and other hon. Members have raised?

[Norman Lamb]

I think that is a brilliant idea. I completely support the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and would be happy to work with him to ensure that it happens. The opportunity for us across Committees to challenge and question Ministers and ensure effective action is a valuable one.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I, too, commend the Committee and its Chair for this excellent report. I have not yet had the chance to read it, but I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, is he aware of the excellent work being done by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and the all-party group on social media and young people’s mental health and wellbeing, which he chairs? It recently held an inquiry into social media and young people’s mental health, which will be published in March, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to take note of that.

The second point is about the potential for social media to be a force for good in relation to young people’s health. I chair the all-party group on children, teenagers, and young adults with cancer, and we are keen for good health messages to go out on social media because, as the right hon. Gentleman says, young people today see no difference between the online and offline worlds, and social media is potentially a powerful force for good. Would he consider holding a further inquiry, if necessary, to explore that issue?

[Norman Lamb]

I would be happy to work with the all-party group to ensure that our collective learning on this issue feeds into decision making by the Government, so that we get the legislation right and as quickly as possible. The hon. Lady makes the important point that social media is often a force for good. It is important to have a balanced view of this issue, and although we must recognise the powerful potential good impact that social media can have, we must also recognise its risks and harms and take action to protect children from those harms, while not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

I wish to follow on from the point raised by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) about the potential force for good of social media, and I thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and his Committee for this report. I also wish to reflect on comments made yesterday by the Suicide Prevention Minister, who referred to the opportunity to use algorithms to promote things positively. As a parent of four daughters aged between 15 and 20, and as a mother who works away, I can say that social media has provided a very positive influence in my daughters’ lives. One particular YouTuber, Zoe Sugg, was almost a virtual big sister in our household, and I echo those comments and encourage more positive stories around social media and the opportunity for positive algorithms to support its use in the future.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Lady makes a valuable point, and I am conscious that teenagers and young people can get online access to advice, guidance and support to help them through difficult periods of their life, and encourage them to seek help from others. We must recognise that and ensure that our approach to this issue is balanced, both recognising the potential harms and understanding the positive aspects of social media.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his Committee on the production of this excellent report. Does he agree that as new technology develops, and particularly as we hand more control over to algorithms, there is an urgent need to ensure that ethical considerations are fully thought through at the design stage? In addition to the specific regulation that he envisages, we also need a more general code of data ethics—a sort of Hippocratic oath, perhaps, for developers and data scientists—to ensure that those principles are thought through as technology is developed. Would he support my campaign for such a code to be named after Ada Lovelace?

[Norman Lamb]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and I would support her campaign. I also agree about the importance of designing ethics into the way that algorithms operate. Indeed, this week our Committee took evidence from the head of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, and there is an important discussion to be had. Although there are rapid developments on the ground with the Government using algorithms in all sorts of different ways, we do not fully understand how to ensure an ethical framework that protects people from bias and can be built into the data used by algorithms. If such bias become embedded into the algorithms there are very dangerous potential outcomes, and my hon. Friend is correct to say that we need to get this right.

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

May I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating our Committee Clerks on helping us with this extensive and high-quality report? Does he agree that in traditional regulated sectors, the idea that a regulator should be able to see data to assess harm on behalf of consumers and take action in an appropriate way is perfectly normal? Not just our report but that by the chief medical officer, reports that we are expecting from the Government, and announcements made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) and by others, indicate that this is merely an incremental change as we adjust to the new online world. This is something that should be welcomed, and positively and proactively taken forward by the Government without many hurdles.

[Norman Lamb]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the amazing support that we get from an impressive and able team, and I very much agree that data must be available to regulators and researchers so that we gain a much greater understanding of where the risks are and which children are most at risk of harm. By improving our understanding in that way, we are much more likely to protect children from harm.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Mims Davies)]

This is the second time this week that I find myself in the same room as the right hon. Gentleman, agreeing on many issues and focusing on our children’s mental health. That feels very appropriate in Children’s Mental Health Week. As we have heard today, social media is one of many factors that may contribute, in both a positive and negative way, to our children’s mental health. We recognise that social media and technology can bring huge benefits for our young people, but we need to recognise and manage potential harms.

I welcome the Science and Technology Committee’s report and the opportunity to better understand the relationship between young people’s mental health, excessive screen time and the use of social media. We will consider the Committee’s findings ahead of the publication of the online harms White Paper. The report calls for media companies to have a duty of care. We are seriously considering all regulatory options as part of the White Paper. In the meantime, the Government are very clear that we need to hold companies to account. They have a responsibility to their users. We will be setting out plans for both legislative and non-legislative measures in our online harms White Paper.

We continue to work with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care on all possible policy options to take forward on young people’s mental health in relation to all areas of health and social media. All relevant Ministers across Government will see and react to this very good report.

[Norman Lamb]

I thank the Minister very much. Just to be clear, the other occasion when the Minister and I were in a room together was when we talked about the national lottery’s work on children’s mental health. It is making a very significant investment, in six places around the country, in looking at how we can give children the best possible start to life. That is worth applauding.

I welcome the Minister’s response. All I would say is that I encourage her to get on with it. We have been waiting for quite a long time now, and we need the White Paper to be published as soon as possible. Harms continue to happen while we wait for the legislation to be introduced.

Banking Misconduct and the FCA

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Martin Whitfield]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I am just moving on to talk about the fact that although there are very legitimate objectives at the turnaround units that many banks have operated, they are so easily manipulated to carry out systematic asset stripping of small and medium- sized enterprises. Indeed, it is the surveyors, insolvency practitioners, turnaround consultants, Law of Property Act receivers, lawyers and accountants that support financial institutions and enable and facilitate the systematic abuse that was so clearly laid bare in the section 166 report who must also be held to account for these failings.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the section 166 report. I understand that the second phase has now been brought in-house into the Financial Conduct Authority. Promontory has ended its role. There is a concern on the part of many people that there will be a lack of transparency. There is a concern about a further possible cover-up of really serious wrongdoing.

[Martin Whitfield]

Again, I am really grateful for that insightful interjection. There clearly is a concern about transparency. Beyond the single events—tragic as many of these are—the overall story and picture that people are taking away about our banking industry is its being heavily influenced by hidden-door decisions, by delayed reports and by people, frankly, trying to protect themselves rather than shining a light on what has been happening to try to make the system better for the future.

Here we are again, talking about past misconduct. However, this is the catch, and it was mentioned early on: for business owners across the country who have lost their livelihoods, their homes, their marriages and, quite often, their health, this is not an issue of past misconduct; it greets them every single day when they wake up and haunts them at night when they go to sleep.

The impact of this scandal has been so profoundly damaging that people have taken the appalling decision to end their lives because they cannot face things any more. It is the responsibility of this House and of the financial services—it is genuinely the responsibility of everyone—to ensure that there are answers to these questions so that, hopefully, and at last, some people and some families can find some peace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) and I agree with every word he said. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing the debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

The case for both an independent tribunal and a full public inquiry is overwhelming: the destruction of businesses, the destruction of lives, the ruin it has caused for families and the appalling treatment of whistleblowers. Brave people chose to speak out, risking everything. My constituent Mark Wright has seen his career and his health destroyed. He is a brave man still left waiting. What I would say to the Minister is this: this issue unites the House. There is complete agreement on both sides of the House on the need for something to happen. We have been debating this matter for quite some time and I do not really feel any sense of progress being made. I am afraid to say that I have lost confidence in the FCA’s ability to get to the bottom of the extreme wrongdoing that we have witnessed across our banking sector. This issue causes so much anger among people across our country. There is a sense that the elite got away with it without any consequences. I therefore say to the Minister: take seriously the sentiment on both sides of the House and call a public inquiry without further delay.

I want to raise an additional issue, which has the potential for further scandal: the risk that victims of the shareholder action against RBS and victims of GRG could face further loss as a result of the behaviour claims management companies and the failure of regulation and the policing of those regulations by the Ministry of Justice. The regulations were brought in by the Compensation Act 2006. Any claims management company that operates as a business needs to be regulated, yet the claims management company that worked on the shareholders’ action has never been regulated at all. This has been brought into sharp focus because of the action in that case. There has been a settlement of £200 million, but victims are still waiting for most of the money to be distributed. There are concerns about a £20 million bill from a firm called Evaluesafety linked to a certain Gerard Walsh, who has been involved from the very start. He has a track record of personal and business insolvency and has faced allegations of fraud, yet when concerns are raised with the MOJ it seems satisfied by assurances given by a lawyer associated with Gerard Walsh that everything is fine and that regulation is not relevant in this case. However, lawyers have advised the action group company that it comes within the regulatory remit and yet the MOJ does nothing.

I am really concerned about a double jeopardy here: people who have already lost through the appalling behaviour of RBS are now at risk of losing again with the settlement money leaking out all over the place, potentially improperly, and the victims left still waiting. The Ministry of Justice is doing nothing to get to grips with this. These are Government regulations passed through this House. The MOJ—I urge the Minister to have words with his ministerial colleagues—needs to get a grip. There are criminal sanctions where there is a failure to properly register in the regulation system. These people, if they are taking money out of the settlement pot away from innocent victims, need to be pursued. I do not know what the solution is and I do not know the full facts of the case, but I absolutely know that it needs to be investigated as a matter of urgency.

This is a long-running scandal. So many people have lost out so badly that we will only restore confidence in the banking system and in the system of regulation if we have a full public inquiry. The Government need to order it now.

Customs and Borders

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

With great respect to my close ally and friend, I must make a little progress and finish making this point. I might already have had my 10 minutes.

The theory is propounded to the British people that we somehow have nothing to do with these EU trading arrangements and that somehow, when trade deals are done, grey men in the European Commission secretly impose upon us all sorts of restrictive terms. Indeed, the right-wing press give the impression to all their readers that that is what we are facing now. They suggest that Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier are somehow plotting against us, that the whole thing is being done by unaccountable Eurocrats who are trying to take revenge on us, and that the trouble with our EU trade deals is that we have no say in them and they happen mechanically. That is complete rubbish, and it is rubbish that has been propounded for the last 30 or 40 years.

The Commission does have some roles that our civil service does not have, but basically it can negotiate only if it has the approval of each and every member state’s Government. It negotiates only within a mandate that the states have agreed. In my own ministerial experience of EU trade and economic affairs, the bigger countries —particularly Britain—have a huge influence on what is being negotiated. In my last job in the Cameron Government, when I was in the Cabinet Office without portfolio, I was asked by David Cameron to lead for us on the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal. I spent time in Brussels and Washington doing that. I cannot say that I played a key role, but the whole point was that the British were keen advocates of that, along with the Germans, the Italians and the French. We were all close to what was going on, and seeking to find out where things were going and whether we could push it. No deal has ever been done by the EU with any other country that anbody has ever objected to in the United Kingdom. For example, no British Government ever protested about the EU deal with South Korea, which is one of the better ones that we have achieved recently. No one ever told me they were against it.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I really should not, because the Speaker will get extremely annoyed. I must come to a quick conclusion and I wanted to touch on Ireland. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but other people must get in.

It is an utterly ludicrous idea that it would somehow be better if we do things on our own. The countries always cited are the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and they will do deals with us because they all want to sell us foodstuffs. There is not a great deal of trade that we can add between us and New Zealand and Australia, and the Americans are desperately keen to sell us their beef and their chicken. As someone has already said, all trade deals are not done by a sovereign country saying, “Of course we are not binding ourselves to do anything.” They involve the agreeing of market regulations and of the trading rules that will apply. We would not say, “It’s all going to be decided by the British courts.” There would be an international arbitration agreement to which businesses and countries could look if one side started breaking its treaty obligations. The Americans will say, “Give up these European food safety and environmental regulations, and we will trade with you on ours.” If we let in chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef and genetically modified crops— personally I am not convinced that they are the health hazards that most people in the country seem to believe they are—that means new barriers with Europe, which will not let those products go straight through, and we will probably lose a large part of our biggest market, for food and agricultural products, which is in Europe.

I have one final point to make on international trade and about where the debate is unrealistic. WTO rules have suddenly been elevated to some mystic world order that means that our new trade agreements will somehow be much better. I wish that were true. This country does abide by WTO rules, but they are nothing like as comprehensive as they ought to be because the Doha round failed. The Americans take no notice of the WTO. The Americans and the Chinese are about to start a trade war, and everything that they are doing is in total breach of WTO rules. We will not get a deal with Donald Trump subject to WTO rules. He will not even appoint judges to the WTO court, because otherwise it might do what is usually its major duty, which is settling disputes between states.

Going back to what the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said, we want trade with Europe that has no barriers between ourselves and Europe. It will require some ingenuity to find some basis on which we might still be able to do trade deals with other people, but the idea that some marvellous new global future with fantastic new trade deals is about to open up is hopeless. If someone can get the Americans to open up their public procurement to international competition and give up the “Buy America” policy or to open the regulatory barriers that they have put in the way of professional and financial services, they will be a miraculous negotiator, because we could get nowhere when Obama was in power. I do not think that the present Administration are offering us anything; they just want their beef to come here.

Finally, on Ireland—I will be much shorter on this because it is a big question that has been touched on already—it is absolutely critical that we do not break the Good Friday agreement. It is quite obvious that most people on this side of the Irish sea had never thought about Ireland when we were debating during the referendum and when they were propounding their policies. The problem of the Good Friday agreement has been addressed by most Brexiteers by them saying, “Surely that’s all over now? Isn’t it a nuisance? What an irrelevance. Let us break it now, because it no longer matters. It is far more important that we get the kind of hard Brexit that we want.” That is very dangerous.

The Good Friday agreement is one of the major achievements of the British Governments of my time. It was negotiated with the Americans, with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and with every section of opinion in Northern Ireland. It brought an end—almost; it is the end, I hope—to 200 years of the troubles in Ireland after they erupted into violence. When the troubles were under way in the ’70s and ’80s we lost more policemen and soldiers in Ulster than we did in Iraq and Afghanistan put together. The agreement was a splendid achievement for John Major and Tony Blair, so to say, “What an inconvenience. It is getting in the way of our leaving the customs union,” is very dangerous.

I thought that the Government had accepted that. Indeed, I think they have done so formally on two occasions. First, we had the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, which addressed the matter. Talking about the discussions she had had with Europe about Northern Ireland, she said that

“we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border.”

That was solemnly agreed. It was the agreed Cabinet policy. The Foreign Secretary made a strange speech before the Florence speech and a statement shortly afterwards that gave the impression that he was trying to undermine the speech, but I am sure he was not. That statement is already agreed Government policy.

Secondly, we finally managed to make progress by finishing the withdrawal agreement, and we published the texts of what had been agreed. As people have said, there are all these other possible solutions involving using congestion charge cameras and things to avoid issues at the border, but I do not think that they will get very far. We have already committed ourselves to the following:

“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation”,

which I think means pretty well full regulatory convergence. As someone has already said, the chief constable of Ulster has said that we cannot have infrastructure at a new hard border. It would outrage nationalist and republican opinion across the whole island and take us right back to all the problems we had. Symbolism is huge in the politics of Ireland and always has been, and it would be grossly irresponsible to put a hard border in the middle of the island of Ireland again. We have never been on such good terms with the Government of the Republic of Ireland since the Republic was founded.

If we have those arrangements at the Irish border, the same arrangements will of course apply to Holyhead and to Dover. That is what I want to see. We want no new barriers and no customs processes. We want the necessary level of regulatory convergence. Obviously, the easy way to do that is to stay in the customs union and stay in the single market. If not, we will need what I think the Prime Minister described as a “customs procedure”, which will be something that looks remarkably like the single market and the customs union.

The customs union is what today’s business is about, and it would do terrible damage to this country if, for strange ideological reasons in the confused aftermath of a misguided referendum, we were to take such a foolish step as not to replicate the customs union in any future arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for securing today’s debate, which has been incredibly important, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for liberating me to speak. It was extremely generous of him, and I intend to make full use of it.

I want to do something unusual in my new free-speaking, freewheeling role and agree with one of the things said by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). She said that there has been a great deal of dishonesty in this debate, and she is completely right. It is pretty much the only thing that I agree with her on, but dishonesty has been the hallmark of the Brexiteers’ arguments before, during and after the referendum. I am sorry to break with the more consensual, collegiate tone that many Members have struck, but we need a bit of truth telling in this debate. We need to be clear about the risks that we face as a country and clear about some of the fibs that were told to the country during the process.

As a former shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and as someone in the Labour party who feels a huge degree of pride about all we did to bring about an end to 30 years of civil war in a part of our country, we cannot countenance any return to any hard border in Northern Ireland. It would be utterly unconscionable for this place to allow that to happen. When the Chief Constable of the Police Service in Northern Ireland is warning us all publicly—a pretty remarkable thing for him to do—that we risk the return of a hard border that would jeopardise the safety and security of his officers and of the people of Northern Ireland and when that view is shared across the political divide in Northern Ireland, this place must listen.

The situation was not discussed prior to the referendum, when it was not clear that we were going to jeopardise peace in Ireland. If there is to be any sort of harder border in Northern Ireland, it is now clear that we run the risk of jeopardising that peace. That is the first and most important thing that I have to say, and that alone should cause us to pause and say, “We must stay in the customs union and the single market.” The truth is that staying in the customs union is insufficient to guarantee that we will not, over time, have a return to a hard border on the island of Ireland. Regulatory divergence unfolding over a longer period will be the one thing—more than the short-term effect of customs tariffs at the border—that will guarantee the return of the hard border, which cannot be countenanced by this place. If we allow it to happen, we would be betraying the people of the Northern Ireland and the national interests of this country

Let me turn briefly to the economic effects of Brexit, because we need some truth telling there, too. Brexit is already damaging the economic this country’s wellbeing. The International Monetary Fund said just this week that the only G7 country that will not grow at anything like the almost 4% that the world is predicted to grow at over the next period is the UK, and its view is that that is due to Brexit. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the OECD and the Government hold the same view. The Government’s own projections clearly show that with the very best outcome, which is staying in the single market and the customs union, we will still see a reduction in GDP of around 2%, which is equivalent to the change we saw after the 2008 crash.

[Norman Lamb]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Brexiteers’ claim that we have to leave the customs union to grow our trade with the rest of the world is just grossly misleading? Germany exports £77 billion to China against our £22 billion, so we have every opportunity within the customs union to grow our trade wherever we want. It is down to us, not the rules of the customs union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Brake]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I agree that we need a dose of Brexit reality. In fact, I agree with everything she said. I am sure she will share my concern about the recent figures on the number of EU nurses who have gone off the register, and indeed the number who have left the country, just at a time when we have significant vacancies.

Just as I agree with everything the hon. Lady said, I disagree with everything said by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who is no longer in her place. However, at least she had the courage to be here to present that hard Brexit line. Where are the hard Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches? Where is the Foreign Secretary? Where is the Secretary of State for International Development? Where is the Leader of the House? [Interruption.] Oh, there is one. They should be here to hear what they are inflicting on the country. Perhaps the reason they are not here is that they did not want to hear some very well-judged, measured contributions from Members on their own Benches explaining precisely the damage that they are causing.

[Norman Lamb]

I agree with everything my right hon. Friend is saying. Does he share my complete confusion that many of those hard Brexiteers have spent their political lives fighting to cut red tape, yet here they are gratuitously proposing to massively increase red tape? What sense does that have?

[Tom Brake]

Absolutely, and I will come on to that very strong point shortly. The chaos those people have caused is being added to on a daily basis. Today, for instance, we have the Home Secretary refusing to confirm that the UK will come out of the customs union, and on the same day, we have the Foreign Secretary threatening to resign if we do. Well, there you are—what a well-run Cabinet delivering Brexit for us in this chaotic manner.

Why does the customs union matter? Before I touch on that, I should point out that, if people look at the literature circulated during the campaign, they will see that it was about spending Britain’s cash in Britain, it was often about immigration, it was about posters such as Nigel Farage’s poster scaring people with that picture of all those refugees. He did not have a massive poster saying, “What do we want? To come out of the customs union. When do we want it? Now.” Of course that was not a major feature of the campaign. Anyone who suggests otherwise is speaking somewhat remote from the truth.

Why does the customs union matter? Many Members have referred to the Irish border; it is a real pity that the Secretary of State only went to the border for the first time a couple of days ago. It also matters for the Dover border. I understand that “BBC South East Today” has confirmed that, so far, not a single Minister from DExEU has been to the port of Dover. I find it incredible that they have not managed to visit the port of Dover. If they had, they would have been able to see directly the impact of the customs union on our largest port.

I could touch on the impact on BMW and its ability to manufacture cars in Oxford, or indeed the issue of red tape for small businesses. There is also the cost of roughly £30 for every small business that exports to the EU to process electronic paperwork that it does not have to process at the moment.

What have the Government offered in return? What is their solution? Under a customs partnership, the UK would collect duties “on the EU’s behalf” for goods destined for the European Union. Think about what would happen if the EU put the reverse offer to us, whereby the EU collected duties on the UK’s behalf for goods destined for the UK. Would the Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches say, “That’s a brilliant idea. That’s exactly what I want the EU to do for us”? Of course they would not, because it is absolute nonsense to suggest that and they would not possibly support that if the EU suggested it.

The UK has recently been threatened with a nearly £2 billion fine for failing to handle imports at its ports effectively, leading to significant VAT losses in other EU countries. I cannot see the EU queuing up to give us responsibilities for something that we are not handling very well at the moment. As for the highly streamlined customs arrangement, no one has been able to identify the technology for it, and that technology needs to be in place, I suggest, by the end of 2019 to be properly run in and tested.

On the position of the Labour Front-Bench team, I do not know whether seeking a final deal that gives “full access” to European markets and “maintains the benefits” of the single market and the customs union is anything other than having your cake and eating it, but the Liberal Democrats still think we are better off in the European Union, in the single market and in the customs union, and we want to secure a final say on the deal for everyone in the country, to do this democratically.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Norman Lamb Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The spirit that has run through the House during the passage of the Bill necessitates continued dialogue, and I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking.

I make it clear that when an individual seeks to access or transfer their pension pot, the duties will ensure that they are referred to Pension Wise guidance and that they receive an explanation of the nature and purpose of that guidance. Before proceeding with an application, subject to any exceptions, schemes must ensure that individuals have either received Pension Wise guidance or have opted out. Rules and regulations can specify how and to whom an individual must confirm that they are opting out, which allows for the opt-out process to be separated from schemes. Rules and regulations will set out the detail of the opt-out process, based on evidence of what helps people take up Pension Wise guidance.

These Government amendments lay the foundation for an effective final nudge towards guidance and will allow us to test what works best before implementation and to update the approach in future. They strike the right balance with what is set out in primary legislation, with rules and regulations providing suitable flexibility.

In the interests of time, and to be fair to everyone else, I will now sit down.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It has been good to join the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), and many others, in tabling our amendments. I very much welcome the Minister’s response.

People often get into a vicious circle, with mental ill health leading them into debt because they neglect vital things and the pressure of those debts intensifying their mental ill health. Kenny Johnston, an inspiring man who set up the charity Clasp and who walked out of darkness to build solidarity for people experiencing mental ill health and suicidal ideation, went through eight years of battle with a bank on mortgage arrears that were started by mental ill health, resulting in two suicide attempts—there was constant pressure on him over that eight-year period. This measure will make a difference. It will help, and it is good the Government have been prepared to listen.

It is important to understand that this is not a panacea. I encourage the Minister also to recognise that there are very many people beyond the scope of clauses 19 and 20, such as people in in-patient care and people supported in the community, who are still experiencing mental ill health and who may end up at risk of suicide because of debt. It is important to get the message out and to establish proper processes in companies, particularly financial services companies, to treat people with mental ill health in an appropriate way in order to protect vulnerable citizens.

Legislation is already in place. The Equality Act 2010 contains a duty to consider reasonable adjustments for people who suffer from a disability, which can include mental ill health, and it is important that we spread best practice much further. I welcome the measure, but it is a start and we need to do much more to protect people’s lives.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Given the shortness of time, I will be brief. I thank the Minister and congratulate him on providing the House with what we were looking for this afternoon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), the Breathing Space campaign and the 80-odd colleagues on both sides of the House who have supported the proposal.

I thank the Minister and the Government for signalling what many people in the House and across the country hugely welcome: an appetite for cross-party working in pursuit of looking after the most vulnerable in society, in the spirit of the Prime Minister’s mission when she arrived in No. 10 two years ago. This will send a signal that we are serious.

Secondly, I echo the comments made by my neighbour, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), about the importance of understanding the vicious cycle of mental health and debt, and the way in which the two are so often implicated here. Recent figures from ComRes have shown that 56% of people in work say that payday struggles are their biggest anxiety. Often that anxiety can lead to further complications in terms of depression, which can lead to mental health problems, which in turn can undermine their ability to earn and work. That often leads into a cycle that makes both the indebtedness and the mental health suffering worse, as I know from my own experience. Sixty years ago, my father won the Grand National and 10 years later he suffered a life collapse from a combination of indebtedness, bankruptcy, mental health issues and head injuries, which in those days were not well treated. It is a sign of how far we have come as a society and as a politics that we now talk about these issues so much more openly and we offer so much more help.

I shall close with my third point, which relates to the importance of that taboo. So many people in our society still suffer in silence from debt, which knows no boundaries and is no respecter of class, political affiliation or geography. People who may appear at ease and prosperous—and often those who appear most that way—are struggling in misery behind the scenes and compounding that misery through their inability to feel confident enough to talk about it. That is why, along with the co-chair of the all-party group on inclusive growth, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), we are working on a small campaign this summer with StepChange, the Money Advice Service, the Financial Conduct Authority and Martin Lewis called “Share not Shame” to encourage people to talk more openly about their indebtedness issues and to seek the help that is available. Many people in this country are paying far too much for debt that could be provided at a minimum—at a fraction of the price—and their debts could be rescheduled in a way that takes the pressure and shame from them. I welcome warmly the undertaking the Minister has given today and congratulate those Members who have led the campaign on this, which will signal across the country that this Parliament is taking their interests very seriously.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The testimony we just heard from the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) was incredibly powerful and valuable.

I speak as a co-sponsor of the debate, and I agree with every word of the opening statement by the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis). The revelations in the report of the independent review are absolutely shocking, and that is without the revelation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) that the full report says

“Management knew or should have known that this was an intended and co-ordinated strategy”.

Why was that left out of the report’s summary? It potentially makes the FCA complicit in the cover-up, which is incredibly serious and needs to be considered.

Even without that, the report of the independent review highlights systematic failures, which in itself is an incredibly important conclusion. There was a failure to fully recognise and manage the conflict of interest between GRG’s twin objectives of turning around businesses and making a financial contribution to RBS. The review concludes that the commercial objective had been the strategic focus of management. That prompts the question: was GRG just incredibly stupid, or did it know exactly what it was doing? If it did know what it was doing, it amounts to theft of assets from people who, in many cases, were running entirely viable businesses—the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) described it as asset stripping. These were people who had grafted throughout their adult lives to build up their businesses, which were destroyed by this outrageous behaviour. It is an extraordinary scandal.

The catalogue of unacceptable behaviour outlined in the review and exposed by brave whistleblowers demonstrates an absolutely rotten culture: victory emails celebrated taking assets off businesses; there were incentives for staff to take more money off stressed businesses to boost their bonuses; and what of the role of lawyers in managing the conflict of interest, or of the accountants, or of the auditors? Who was complicit in this scandal? That is why the hon. Member for Norwich South said we need an inquiry to find out who is culpable.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He mentions the relationship between the FCA and RBS. Is he aware of the leaked minute from an FCA board meeting that says that one of the reasons why the FCA will not release the full report is that it is concerned about being sued by RBS? Does that not raise the question of who is regulating whom in this relationship?

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. We rely on the regulator to be powerful and tough in such situations.

The human cost is incalculable. People have been driven to suicide and marriages and health have been destroyed, but who has been held to account for this disgusting behaviour? People and businesses ruined must have justice. I say to the Minister that an independent tribunal is essential. It would act as a deterrent to bad behaviour; banks would know their actions have consequences if they knew it would go to an independent tribunal.

My constituent Mark Wright is an RBS whistleblower. His career and his health have been destroyed. He and others are the heroes of this sorry story, risking everything to do the right thing, yet he has also been horribly let down by the regulator. The FCA, including its chief executive, Andrew Bailey, dismissed his concerns, but this week he won a vital victory when the complaints commissioner ruled that the FCA was wrong to reveal his name to RBS. What cavalier disregard of a whistleblower’s rights! The FCA fought the complaint all the way, only apologising right at the end. The case was brilliantly pursued by Steve Middleton, who deserves enormous credit. He is now setting up, with others, Bank Confidential—I declare an interest in that I am a patron—to protect whistleblowers and expose wrongdoing.

The truth is that whistleblowers have no real protection in this country. Contrast that with the situation in the United States, where the Dodd-Frank legislation introduced the Office of the Whistleblower, which is there to protect whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are rewarded financially for doing the right thing—they are awarded between 10% and 30% of the sanction collected against the firm, which can run into millions of dollars. What a contrast with the position in this country! We need our own office of the whistleblower, and whistleblowers should be guaranteed anonymity; they should be rewarded for their bravery. Maintaining the integrity of the banking system is of fundamental importance to us all, and whistleblowers are necessary for that purpose.

My fear is that in the aftermath of the crash in 2008, all the focus of the banks, the regulator and Government was on rebuilding balance sheets, and a collective blind eye was turned to how that was achieved and how many victims were left along the way—business owners and whistleblowers. The Government and the FCA now need to act to clear up this scandal and to get new arrangements in place to rebuild trust in British banking and give justice to those ruined by this outrageous behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. Of course we need to reach a stage where we have some answers. We need to know what went wrong, and we need to secure an outcome that is acceptable to our constituents.

It is important to recognise the fundamental need for financial providers to act in accordance with the rules of the FCA and the spirit of its principles. When they do not act in accordance with those principles, we need to have confidence in the mechanisms that exist to resolve disputes.

[Norman Lamb]

The Minister has not yet mentioned the role of whistleblowers. Does he agree that they are vital to maintaining the integrity of the financial system, that they need proper protection—an office of the whistleblower—and that they should be rewarded for being brave enough to reveal wrongdoing?

[John Glen]

I listened very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and he is absolutely right. We need a change to the culture to enable wrongdoing to be exposed and dealt with, and I will look very carefully at this matter and the principles in his suggestions.

I am very aware of the allegations and the powerful testimony made against RB. I have taken on board the discussions we have had today, and later I will refer to some of the other substantive points raised across the House, but I want to be clear with Members: I saw the front page of City A.M. today, whose headline is “Go Hang”, and I do not condone the language in the GRG letter that RBS itself chose to release yesterday. I assure the House that the Government take these issues and any allegations of malpractice very seriously.

Christmas Adjournment

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 21st December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Unfortunately, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), had to return to his constituency earlier and has asked me to lead off in the debate.

I kick off by sending the sympathies of the whole House to the Chairman of Ways and Means and his family at this time of terrible tragedy. We hope that he has as peaceful a Christmas and new year as is possible under these dreadful circumstances.

I wish to begin with the matter of homelessness. I make no apologies for pointing out to the House that my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, almost the last Act given Royal Assent before we broke up for the general election, is yet to enter fully and finally into law. It becomes law on 1 April 2018. The Government have just concluded a detailed consultation on a 180-page document on the advice given to local authorities on the implementation of the Act and how homeless people are to be treated in this country. The Select Committee on Communities and Local Government is making representations to that consultation, and I look forward in the new year to the Government coming forward with recommendations to amend the consultation document slightly to make it far more user friendly for the people who need help—the people who are homeless.

The Act was the longest private Member’s Bill in history and the most expensive. It is quite clear, therefore, that this will be a revolution in how homeless people are treated in this country. The secondary legislation required to bring the Act into full force will come before the House in February, I believe, so clearly there is still work to be done to get this in place as required.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman’s amazing work on this important legislation. I was with an amazing group of people at the Shelter office in Birmingham yesterday and, in particular, spoke to peer workers, who had been through the experience of street homelessness and could provide incredible and important support. They raised the issue of how sanctions in the benefits system are applied to street homeless people, many of whom suffer from mental ill health and have addiction issues, and who, with the best will in the world, have no way to ensure they attend a benefits meeting a week or fortnight hence. They miss the meetings and then have no money for a month or longer. This, surely, is something we have to address in terms of the civilised treatment of these people.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, people who are street homeless—actually sleeping on the streets rough—have chaotic lives and do not work to the same sort of timetables as everyone else. It is clearly wrong in principle, therefore, that they be penalised when, through no fault of their own, they fail to attend such meetings and have their benefits taken away. We have to do far more. We know, above all else, that every single person who is homeless is a unique case and therefore should be treated as such and sympathetically.

This is the 50th anniversary of the founding of Crisis. One of my political heroes was the late Iain Macleod, who helped to fund and start Crisis. It started off as Crisis at Christmas, but has gone on to provide services throughout the year. All Members have an opportunity to make a difference. The Crisis Christmas single, a re-recording of “Streets of London” by Ralph McTell, commemorates its 50th anniversary. It features the Crisis choir and Annie Lennox as guest vocalist. All Members and members of staff can download the single, for 99p, and we can aim to make it the Christmas No. 1.

If I cannot convince Members to buy “Streets of London”, they could download Phil Ryan’s Christmas single. He has worked with Lord Bird, the founder of the “The Big Issue”, for 26 years, and has launched a self-penned single, “Walking Down this Lonely Street”. Homelessness and loneliness are two things that go hand in hand. It would be great for all Members to download and support those singles.

Taxation: Beer and Pubs

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) on securing it. The Northern Ireland hospitality industry sustains some 60,000 jobs, including more than 45,000 in food and drink. I advocate drinking responsibly, and many of the public houses in my area have a reputation for removing keys from locals if they have ordered enough drinks to be approaching the limit, even if the drinks are not completely drained. I am thankful for that. I ask more people and businesses to take that step, to ensure that people never drive at or close to the limit.

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and other hon. Members who have spoken that there is a need for a comprehensive review of the business rate, which puts pubs and other small businesses at a disadvantage—particularly in comparison with cheap booze from supermarkets and other larger businesses?

[Jim Shannon]

No one in the Chamber today would disagree with that.

The Government rightly tried to incentivise the production of lower strength beers, up to 2.8% ABV, in order to encourage moderate drinking. Unfortunately, because of the taste of 2.8% beer, that has not stimulated the relevant part of the market. Current HMRC duty receipts show that those lower strength beers make up only 0.15% of total UK volumes. However, the industry has provided concrete evidence that the consumer will drink lower strength beers at 3.5% ABV, which is still significantly below the UK average strength. Legal advice has also been provided, which shows that the Treasury can indeed add another duty band between 2.8% and 3.5%, which would enable the Government to incentivise the production and consumption of lower strength products, in the interests of moderation. There no excuse for that change not to happen now; the current advice is compliant with the EU structures directive, but the Government have so far chosen not to act, or to ignore it. We should not be prevented by the EU, when we are trying to bring in a progressive policy that would benefit the UK.

The contribution of the hospitality industry in Northern Ireland in wages alone is £653.4 million. Tourism in Northern Ireland provides 58,000 jobs; the wider tourism economy contributes £1.6 billion to Northern Ireland’s GDP; and food and drink account for more than 30% of visitor spending. Those are significant figures, on which we can build.

Economy and Jobs

Norman Lamb Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

I want to dwell for a moment on how we treat those people who are on the lowest pay. When I was a Minister, I became aware that the underpayment of the minimum wage was endemic in the care sector. I got HMRC to do an in-depth investigation into the sector, and I now have the results: £2.5 million of underpaid wages in the care sector. That is a disgrace. In the case of one provider, more than £1 million was underpaid to the lowest-paid people in our country. We cannot continue to operate our public services on the backs of poverty wages for our lowest paid workers. That is a disgraceful way to proceed. It is all very well for the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) to talk about the benefits of austerity, but its impact on some people’s lives is unacceptable.

That leads me on to the fact that we are continuing to cap the pay of our public sector workers, including in the NHS, which in reality means a pay cut for nurses and very many other people. The impact of that is unacceptable. We need a long-term settlement for the NHS and the care system. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) made the point that in this Parliament, instead of making grubby deals, we should be working across the House to settle those issues once and for all and to ensure that there is a long-term settlement for the NHS and care that does not involve exploiting the lowest-paid people in our country.