Tackling Fraud and Preventing Government Waste

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I begin by wishing you a very happy birthday and wishing everyone in No. 10 a very happy end to dry January. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate.

We began with the Paymaster General, No. 10’s fireman, coming once again to pour oil on troubled waters. Members raised a number of important issues. Several rightly raised the need for an economic crime Bill. They also raised the mismanagement of public finances, banks with poor records, losses other than those we are focused on today, crony contracts, and other examples described by the Public Accounts Committee. The overall picture is one of serious deficiencies in the management of our constituents’ money.

Let me focus on the issues in our motion. I turn first to the numbers. On 12 January, HMRC published figures on its website estimating the losses in covid grants due to fraud and error, which it broke down by saying they would be 8.5% of furlough payments and 8.7% of eat out to help out payments. It said that, all in all:

“This equates to £5.8 billion”.

Adding up what has been recovered so far and what it is estimated will be recovered through the taskforce that the Paymaster General referred to in his opening speech gives us a figure of £1.5 billion between 2021 and 2023, leaving us with the £4.3 billion that we have been talking about for the last couple of weeks. Put another way, the Government state on their own website that they expect to recover only a quarter of the sum that they estimate has been lost in fraud and error on these grant schemes. It is important to understand that the losses on bounce back loans are additional to that. Estimates of those losses vary, but they are on top of the £4.3 billion estimated to have been lost through the grant schemes.

The Government say they are chasing down every pound, but on the same website, they say that these losses were

“in line with the original planning assumptions,”

so from the get-go there was an assumption that a significant amount of money would be lost. Loans were made to over 1,000 companies that were not even trading when coronavirus began. Duplicate applications were made, with checks only introduced after 60% of the loans had been made. These are huge amounts of money.

The Government’s defence is that there was pressure to get money out of the door because genuine businesses and individuals needed help; for example, many businesses had been ordered to cease trading as part of the public health measures. Of course it is true that there was pressure to get money out of the door—no one is denying or disputing that—but that cannot be an excuse not to have even a semblance of controls in place. One control could have been asking whether a company had ever traded in the past. Another could have been checking whether the same company was submitting multiple applications to different organisations. Those basic checks were not put in place.

Neither can the legitimate desire to get money out of the door quickly be an excuse for the lack of action since. The Government were warned of the risk of fraud. Before the bounce back scheme was even launched, the chief executive of the British Business Bank wrote to the Secretary of State for BEIS at the time:

“The scheme is vulnerable to abuse by individuals and by participants in organised crime.”

In June 2020, the Fraud Advisory Panel warned that

“we feel we should draw your attention to serious weaknesses that enable fraudsters and corrupt insiders to exploit the”

bounce back loan scheme

“and CBILS loan scheme. Not only does that see public funds diverted to criminal enterprises, but it risks painting the scheme in a bad light and reducing public support for the government’s actions.”

In December 2020, the Financial Times described bounce back loans as a

“giant bonfire of taxpayers’ money”.

One source told the newspaper that

“the scheme was being abused…on an industrial scale.”

Three months before that, in September 2020, former detective Martin Woods said that criminals had identified the scheme as “a fabulous opportunity”. Another said: “This is basically” a criminal’s “dream scenario”, adding that it was an

“incredibly lucrative fraud that requires very little work and has almost no chance of law enforcement action.”

I accept that there was pressure to get money out of the door and get help to people, but that is not an excuse for not having even basic checks in place, and it is not the case that the Government were not warned about the risks. Indeed, as I said, their own website shows that assumptions of the levels of losses that we are talking about were built in from the very beginning.

Let me turn to the lack of action since. The speech by the former Minister for fraud has been extensively quoted in this debate, and it is no wonder. Ministers cannot just come here, thank him for his service and ignore what he said. The quotes from his speech, of which we have heard many today, are completely damning:

“Schoolboy errors…indolence and ignorance…no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20-21.]

That is not the verdict of the Opposition; it is the verdict of the Government’s own Minister on the issue. He also said that this is not an issue of the past. It matters now, because this is the time when the 100% Government guarantee starts to kick in—that is, when the taxpayer starts having to pay the cost of the defaulted loans. It is impossible not to draw a contrast between the dismissal of all those warnings, and the lax way that money was allowed to go to the unscrupulous, with the Government’s determination not to give help to many of the freelancers and others that got no help at all. How angry must they feel watching our proceedings today, when they see billions of pounds being discussed that we may never see again, while their claims were rebuffed by the Treasury time and again.

Lord Agnew rightly made the link between the huge sums that we are discussing and tax, because the context of this debate is that in the year following those losses the Government will bring in a tax rise that will add hundreds of pounds a year to the average family’s tax bill and raise the overall tax burden to the highest levels since the 1950s. It does not matter how many times the Chancellor and the Prime Minister describe themselves as tax-cutting Thatcherites: between them, they have raised taxes far more than any Chancellor of either party since she left office. It is completely absurd for the Chancellor to stand up and give a tax-raising Budget and then try to wash his hands of it at the end.

There is now a yawning gap between the rhetoric and the actual record of stewardship of public money. It smacks of a Government who have been in power for too long, and who have become complacent and, overall, arrogant—although I would never accuse the Minister of that, as I have enormous respect for him. There is an arrogance about the mismanagement of the money, and it is totally cynical to drive through tax increases when families are being squeezed by rocketing energy bills and declining real wages, just so the Chancellor can cut taxes before the next election. Taxes should be geared to the needs of the country, not the political campaign grid of the Conservative party.

This is not just about covid grants and loans. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) highlighted, it has emerged, on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care annual report, that £8.7 billion of losses in PPE have had to be accounted for in that Department’s spending. We should pause and think about that—£8.7 billion of losses. What could that money have done in the NHS? It is twice the Government’s entire hospital building programme, but it is dismissed on page 199 of the Department’s annual report. If we add, for example, that £8.7 billion to the £4.3 billion that we have highlighted today, we get a whole year’s worth of receipts from the national insurance rise that will be imposed on families in April. The Chancellor says those tax rises are all about public services, but it is impossible to escape the conclusion that they are, at least in part, to fill the hole caused by that colossal mismanagement of public money. Working people across the country are being asked to pay the cost of the Government’s mistakes.

The Department of Health and Social Care report does not get any better. The public sector’s auditor in chief has refused to give a clean bill of health to the Department’s 2020-21 accounts, because £1.3 billion has been spent without Treasury approval, and he has pointed out the risk of fraud. This is about grants, loans and departmental spending, and it matters because there is now a direct link with the cost of living crisis that our constituents face. The Chancellor was very keen to claim ownership of the money that has been distributed: he must also claim ownership of the entire record, including the money that has been lost.

Finally, I return to the calls in this debate for an economic crime Bill. That has been called for time and again, and it is supported by the Opposition. We need to bring forward the registration of overseas entities Bill, which the Government know has cross-party support but which they have been sitting on for four years. We need not just to talk about reforming Companies House, but to get on and do it.

We need to implement the Russia report; I saw the Foreign Secretary at the weekend saying that there would be no hiding place for oligarchs. Why have the Government not acted on the Russia report, which is now some two years old? The UK should not be an easy home for illicit finance, the proceeds of looting and kleptocracy. At the end of the day, it is not just a matter of finance and taxation, although it is that, but a matter of national security. The Government’s inaction on that has been gaping for far too long.

I appeal to the Minister: the Government must act on fraud, on both public finance and national security grounds, particularly when they are asking working people to pay more tax. That is what our motion today is all about.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; given his career before he was in this place, he, too, speaks with authority on these matters. He is right to highlight that many of the proposals that people suggest would involve a significant fiscal loosening, which would be inflationary and counterproductive at this time. It is right that fiscal policy is supportive of people, but also mindful of the risks of rising inflation, not least because of the risks for the costs of servicing our debt.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Chancellor will be aware that voters are being hit by a triple whammy on the cost of living: soaring energy bills, the Chancellor’s own tax rises and falling real wages. Next week, the energy price cap could rise by as much as £600. Labour has set out a fully costed plan to cut these bills, funded by a windfall levy on the oil and gas companies making the most money from the current spike in prices. Where is the Government’s plan for those energy costs? What has distracted them from producing one?

[Rishi Sunak]

I would probably slightly disagree with the idea that Labour’s plans are fully costed, but it would not be the first time that its numbers do not add up. With regard to the responsible way forward, the right hon. Gentleman has talked about funding the NHS—a good example of something that is funded, because Government Members know that the NHS is the people’s No. 1 priority. It is right that we tackle the backlogs and reform social care, as the Prime Minister has set out, but it is also right that we fund that sustainably and responsibly, which is what this Government are committed to doing.

[Mr McFadden]

On Sunday, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor nailed themselves to the mast of the national insurance rise coming in this April—like Thelma and Louise, they have held hands and are going to drive off the cliff. The Chancellor says that it is all about public services, but we know that the real reason he is so desperate to stick to the timetable is so that he can implement planned tax cuts before the next election. Why should the cost of living crisis be made much worse for families this year just to fit in with the Tory party’s planning grid for the next election?

[Rishi Sunak]

With regard to the cost of living, the Government have, as we have already discussed, put a range of measures in place to help people, not least the increase in the national living wage by £1,000 a year, the cut to the universal credit taper rate and the freezing of fuel duty. The Government will not shirk from funding the NHS sustainably and responsibly. It is the people’s No. 1 priority; the backlogs are rising at an unprecedented rate, and I think people would like to see them addressed, which can be done only with a sustainable funding stream. That is what we have created, and this is a progressive way to do it. Although these decisions are difficult, a responsible Government do not shirk from them.

Coronavirus Grant Schemes: Fraud

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on fraud in the coronavirus grant schemes.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

Since March 2020, the Government have delivered a comprehensive multibillion-pound package to support individuals and businesses during the pandemic. As the House would expect, the Government have taken the issue of potential fraud relating to covid grant schemes extremely seriously.

Robust measures were put in place to control error and fraud in the key covid support schemes from their inception. For instance, to minimise the risk of fraud and error and unverified claims, the coronavirus job retention scheme and self-employment income support scheme were designed in a way to prevent ineligible claims being made up front, and made grants for employees and businesses using existing data held on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ systems. That included cut-off dates around scheme eligibility and the need for customers to be registered for pay-as-you-earn online or self-assessment. In 2020-21, HMRC recovered £536 million of over-claimed grants.

To further bolster anti-fraud measures, at the spring Budget last year, the Government invested more than £100 million in a taxpayer protection taskforce of more than 1,200 HMRC staff to combat covid-related fraud. This taskforce is expected to recover between £800 million and £1 billion from fraudulent or incorrect payments during 2021-22 and 2022-23.

The Government’s bounce back loan scheme supported more than £46 billion of finance to 1.5 million businesses. We are continuing to actively work with the British Business Bank, lenders and fraud authorities to tackle fraud and to recover loans obtained fraudulently. The value of prevented fraud was £2.2 billion, and we continue to recover further funds through our counter-fraud work. In addition, as part of the spring Budget last year, we announced plans to significantly strengthen enforcement activity against fraudulent bounce back loans. That included introducing processes with the Insolvency Service to prevent the fraudulent dissolution of companies being used as a means to escape liabilities, granting the Insolvency Service new powers and investing further in the National Investigation Service.

Importantly, throughout the pandemic we have been transparent about the estimated level of fraud and error in the covid schemes, and HMRC’s annual report and accounts, which were laid before the House in November last year, included the latest information on error and fraud in the HMRC-administered covid-19 schemes. Figures on estimated losses and the bounce back loans, including those due to fraud, were published in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s annual reports and accounts.

Given the unprecedented efforts that the Government have made to protect jobs and livelihoods during this pandemic, it would have been impossible to prevent all related fraud. However, we have taken reasonable steps, and will continue to do so, to deflect and combat that fraud, and we will continue to be vigilant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I am grateful to the Minister. Last week, the Government confirmed that they expect to write off around £4.3 billion of the funds allocated to coronavirus help schemes. There was no press release, no Instagram video, no statement to this House and no sight of the vanishing Chancellor at all; it was just buried away on the Government website. The Government website states, and the Minister repeated the claim, that from the beginning:

“Robust measures were put in place to control error and fraud in the key coronavirus support schemes.”

If robust measures to prevent fraud were in place, why did they fail to this shocking degree?

In November, the head of HMRC estimated that around half the money lost could be recovered. Why has that estimate now been downgraded to only a quarter of the funds? Why are the Government giving up so easily and not doing more to track down the money, rather than allowing it to remain in the hands of the fraudsters and criminals who have stolen it from taxpayers?

Mr Deputy Speaker, £4.3 billion is a huge sum of money. It is enough to take hundreds of pounds off energy bills this year for every household in the country. It is about the same annual amount as the Chancellor took off people on universal credit in the Budget in November. It is roughly the same as half the annual policing bill for the whole country. This write-off of £4.3 billion comes as households face a cost-of-living triple whammy of rocketing energy bills, the Chancellor’s tax increases and a decline in real wages. Coming on top of the billions wasted on crony contracts and the amounts lost in loan schemes, these levels of waste destroy any claim that the Conservative party had of being careful stewards of the public finances. Will the Minister launch an investigation into how this happened and do more to recover this money from the fraudsters who stole it in the first place?

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I am very happy to address. First, we are not writing anything off. The figures quoted are what we expect that taxpayer protection taskforce to recover in the next two years in which it will exist. HMRC has longer to address fraud in the schemes, which it will do in the context of wider compliance activity. HMRC did not produce the figure of £4.3 billion. I understand that it was an inference made by journalists who subtracted £1.5 billion from the estimate of the amount to be recovered by the taxpayer protection taskforce from the £5.8 billion estimated as error and fraud in 2020-21. That was published and Jim Harra and others from HMRC publicised all this before Christmas—in November. HMRC simply used the same numbers in a “mythbuster” article to be published later this week.

Those are the facts. There is nothing new here today, but I would like to address some of the underlying concerns. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that fraud is unacceptable. We think that, which is why—as I said in my opening remarks—in March last year, the Chancellor dedicated £100 million to employ 1,265 people from HMRC to undertake these fraud checks and to bear down on the fraud. We have had 13,000 one-to-one inquiries and sent 75,000 letters to those thought to have incorrectly claimed.

I point out to the right hon. Gentleman, however, that many of these schemes were stood up, refined and adapted very quickly. In order to meet the needs of individuals, the self-employed and businesses up and down the country, £81.2 billion of payments were made across the three main schemes. Although I recognise that there has been an element of fraud, the Government have never been complacent about that. Grants for employees and businesses used data on HMRC systems. The design of the scheme was informed by expert advice from HMRC, which has extensive knowledge and understanding of where errors and fraud risks lay. We have implemented post-payment compliance to identify and recover overpayment, and we have invoked automated controls into digital claim processes, which have prevented 100,000 ineligible, mistaken claims.

The Government are not complacent at all about error and fraud. We will continue to bear down on it, and I urge Members of the House and members of the public to continue to contact HMRC, as they have done, as we seek to maximise the recovery of moneys lost.

Charter for Budget Responsibility and Welfare Cap

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Monday 10th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

I begin by echoing the sentiments from Mr Speaker earlier following the death of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). I knew Jack for many years, from his time as deputy general secretary of what was then the Transport and General Workers’ Union, and later as a colleague and fellow west midlands MP. He was a tough negotiator, always determined and loquacious, but pragmatic enough to reach a deal and stick to it. We are still in shock at Jack’s sudden death on Friday. We will miss him greatly, and my sincere condolences go to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and their family.

On the motion, the Chancellor announced at the time of the Budget that he would bring this before the House. He made a big thing of it. At the time, we presumed that he would come along and display his credentials for fiscal probity. He probably thought that it was a clever move at the time, but it does not look so clever now. He has not even turned up for tonight’s debate. What happened? Where is he? When he was dishing out money, he was everywhere. We could not move for Instagram videos and pictures of his slippers or sliders, or whatever they are called. Now the crunch is coming, he is nowhere to be seen.

Was the Chancellor worried that if he turned up tonight he would be asked what he will do about the cost of living crisis facing the country? Is he avoiding the House because he has nothing to offer people facing rises in energy bills of hundreds of pounds a year? Why is it that he has done one of his disappearing acts again? He was not here last month when businesses were crying out for support as Christmas bookings were cancelled in their thousands, and he is not here again this month for what he once told us was a central plank of the Treasury’s strategy.

On the rules themselves, during the covid pandemic the Chancellor has had to borrow a great deal of money—approaching £400 billion extra. The pandemic was an emergency situation that required emergency measures. That is true in this country and around the world. Our fiscal rules, published at the time of our conference, take account of such emergency situations, because there is no point in having a set of fiscal rules that work only when times are good. Fiscal rules have to take account of all kinds of economic weather, and ours do exactly that. Crucially, our rules also allow for the investment plan needed for the transition to the lower carbon economy that we will need. The Government’s fiscal rules do neither of those things.

Indeed, when we look at what is happening in the economy right now and what families around the country face in the real world, we have to wonder what the point of this exercise is. Did the Chancellor really think that tabling this motion would take attention away from the fact that he is imposing the highest tax burden on the country for 70 years? The Tories have become a high-tax party because they are a low-growth party. They are asking the British people to stump up the cost of their economic record not for the one or two years of the pandemic but for the past 12 years. Projections from the Bank of England do not look any better, with forecasts for growth of about 1% in 2024. Does the Minister really think that, with this motion, people will not notice or remember that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have driven a coach and horses through one of their central manifesto promises on tax with the forthcoming rise in national insurance? Is he trying to cover up for the fact that, as families face a cost of living crisis with steep rises in energy bills, he has no plan to help them?

The Minister may not have a plan, but Labour does, and it was set out yesterday by the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). Our plan would offer every family £200 off bills this year. It would give a further £400 off bills for those with the lowest incomes. It would help the energy-intensive industries on which so many good jobs rely. It would be paid for, in part, by a windfall levy on the companies making the most money out of the huge spike in gas prices. It is fair, it would help the poorest most and it is fully costed. That is what people need right now—not a reheated political stunt thought up by George Osborne a decade ago.

We have to wonder what the conversation was when this was thought to be some great political idea. Did they sit around in the Treasury and say, “We’ve borrowed £400 billion. We’re putting taxes up to levels not seen since the 1950s. We’ve wasted billions on failed programmes and dodgy contracts. But let’s have a parliamentary vote to show that we are really fiscally disciplined”? It will not wash. People are seeing through it.

You do not have to take my word for it. Only today, the head of the National Audit Office drew attention to the level of waste that the Government are presiding over. He wrote that

“many of the interventions carried out by government are either not evaluated robustly or not evaluated at all. This means government…has little information in most policy areas on what difference is made by the billions of pounds being spent.”

He added that only 8% of major Government projects “had robust evaluation plans”. Perhaps that is not surprising when we have seen £3.5 billion-worth of contracts handed out to businesses run by contacts of the Conservative party, and—the Minister and I debated this last Wednesday night—£17 billion in extra costs for the taxpayer, which the Government casually legislated for last Wednesday night to pay for their own mistake in messing up public sector pensions reform.

Where is the Government’s commitment to transparency, value for money or proper procurement practices in their fiscal rules? Did they forget to include those bits? Where is the commitment to tackling the level of fraud that has been exposed in Government lending schemes? Where is the commitment to controlling the Prime Minister’s pet schemes? How much was spent on the Prime Minister’s idea of building a bridge between Scotland and Ireland before the project was abandoned? The Chancellor should have known, because the Prime Minister has got form. He could not even build a garden bridge over the River Thames, let alone a bridge across the Irish sea.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I am always glad to hear that bridge mentioned, because I did a second-year geography project at high school that could have told the Prime Minister it was a terrible idea. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given that was an infrastructure project for the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland, we should get the money that was committed to it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr McFadden]

I would like to know how much was committed to it. I hope the Minister clarifies that while he is wrapping up and telling us about fiscal probity.

But in the spirit of solidarity, I do have some sympathy with the Chancellor these days. It cannot be easy when his tax policies do not even have the support of his own Cabinet colleagues. The Leader of the House has made his views known. He has told all and sundry that he wants the tax rises coming in April to be cancelled and the Prime Minister has been too weak to do anything about this open breach of Cabinet discipline. Is it a free-for-all in Cabinet nowadays? Does every Cabinet member get to have their own tax policy? Have all the leadership campaigns destroyed whatever collective discipline there might once have been? The former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is not with us tonight, has even taken to using our argument about this Government resembling Ted Heath more than Margaret Thatcher. I know that is not how the Chancellor wanted to be remembered. He wanted to be regarded as a tax-cutting modern monetarist, a worshipper of the true Tory faith. But the real truth is that you cannot stand up and give a Budget that imposes the highest tax burden since the 1950s and then issue a disclaimer at the end of it. It is just not credible. It will not wash and nor will this motion today.

People want help with what they are facing now. The impending squeeze on family incomes in this country is going to take a battering ram to people’s standard of living. It is not just global factors; it is about years of regulatory neglect in the energy market that created a whole host of small energy Northern Rocks that have now had to be bailed out, and about the choices made by this Government through tax rises. Yes, there are global factors in the energy market, but the crisis has been made worse because of decisions and choices made by the Government.

We have published a plan to help people. This is a changed Labour party coming up with real answers to a real cost-of-living crisis faced by families today, and we are facing an exhausted Conservative party that has run out of answers and has sacrificed for ever the mantle of being the party of low taxation. Perhaps there is no greater evidence for that weariness than the fact that on the question households throughout the country are most worried about, how they are going to pay the bills this year, the Government have said nothing at all.

Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords]

Pat McFadden Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to respond to the Chief Secretary’s opening speech. I begin by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Members on both sides of the House a very happy new year.

Pensions are a very important part of workers’ overall pay package. It is in the interests of individuals and society as a whole that good pension schemes and good pension benefits are available to workers in both the public and private sectors and that those who pay into pensions schemes should be able to look forward to a good and secure retirement. When that is not the case, there is more pensioner poverty, lower quality of life in old age and a greater reliance on means-tested benefits. In those circumstances, individuals suffer and society is worse off.

The Bill deals with public sector pension schemes. The experience of the past two years has underlined the contribution made by the public sector workers affected by this legislation. Many of them had to be at work physically throughout the pandemic, caring for the sick, delivering key services or keeping our streets and communities safe. They deserve decent pay and decent pensions.

Part 1 of the Bill seeks to correct what the Public Accounts Committee has termed a “£17 billion mistake” made in the reform of this system through changes introduced by the Government in 2015. To state the obvious, £17 billion is a lot of money. Of course, that is the cost over a long period of time, not just one year, but let us think for a moment what that money could do for families facing energy bills which this year could rise by hundreds of pounds a year. Even a fraction of it could make a major difference to those families. Or to put it in another context, the cost of fixing this mistake made by the Government is around three times the annual bill for the £20-a-week universal credit uplift that the Chancellor largely removed in the autumn.

The Government’s main changes to the pension system in 2015 were to move from final salary to career average pensions and to extend the normal pension age in most schemes. But—this is the crucial point regarding the Bill—there was also provision for those within 10 years of retirement to remain in the previous legacy schemes. That provision was challenged in the courts and found to be discriminatory on the grounds of age in what has become known as the McCloud judgment. The Bill seeks to respond to the McCloud judgment and ensure that people are not unfairly impacted on by the changes on account of their age.

The first question for the Minister must be: where will this £17 billion come from and who will pay the bill? Will it come from the taxpayer as a whole or from pension scheme members? We should remember that a very significant proportion of pensioners in this country are members of one of these schemes. It is very important that Ministers give the House clarity on this matter.

The second point is about the design of the remedy for the McCloud judgment set out in the Bill. Consultation took place on this, and the method chosen is known as the deferred choice underpin. It is perhaps not the most user-friendly title, but what it means in simple terms is that, when people retire, they will have a choice as to which pension scheme should apply for the affected years—between 2015 and 2022—to ensure that they maximise their available pension benefits. The second question I have for the Minister winding up is to clarify whether making this choice will incur any extra costs for the pension scheme members concerned. For example, if members opt to remain in their legacy scheme for the seven years affected, because the rate of accrual in that scheme is higher, will they have to pay any backdated pension contributions to do so?

Then there is the question of how people make their decision under this deferred choice mechanism. Anything that involves individual scheme members making a choice that could have a fundamental impact on their income in retirement raises another question, which is about the quality of information that enables a pension scheme member to make such a choice. The recent history of information on pensions has given rise to some real injustices. We have had unscrupulous advisers trying to exploit pension freedoms and get people to transfer out of perfectly good pension schemes in a way that was clearly not in those people’s interests. Indeed, this House has only recently legislated, in the Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Act 2021, for an increased levy on the pension industry as a direct result of increased levels of pension fraud and mis-selling. So the third question to the Minister is this: how will the Government respond to what has happened in these examples and how will they ensure that, in this case, pension scheme members are equipped with the best possible information to make the choices envisaged under the deferred choice underpin mechanism set out in the Bill?

Finally on this part of the Bill, there is a question about how the cost control mechanism will work. The Chief Secretary has already said that the Government will bring forward amendments on that, and we will have to examine those closely. In brief, it was originally envisaged that, under this mechanism, if costs breached the ceiling, benefits would be reduced, but the Government have said that, in this case, no member will see benefits reduced. What does that mean for where the funding for them will come from, and is there any time period after which this guarantee may lapse?

I now turn to part 2 of the Bill, which makes changes to the pension arrangements for former employees of Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock. Their assets have, until recently, been managed by UK Asset Resolution, which is an arm of Government. The Bill provides assurance that the pension liabilities for these former employees will be met and underpinned by the Treasury. We welcome pension security for these pension scheme members, but can I ask the Minister what the estimated cost is of these provisions, and whether these costs are additional to the £17 billion budgeted for the McCloud response or part of the same overall costs?

Turning to the part of the Bill dealing with the judiciary, the Bill makes changes to the judicial pension scheme, allowing for the deregistering of this scheme for tax purposes on the basis that judges are an exceptional case. I want to return to the question posed a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who asked about the annual allowance and the lifetime allowance. Could I ask the Minister to clarify what this deregistering means in the context of the annual allowance and the lifetime allowance? If it is the case that those two restrictions, as it were, do not apply to the judicial pension scheme, how will the Government respond to representation from others saying that they too are an exceptional case? We have already heard the example of doctors being raised. I would be very grateful if the Minister addressed those points in his winding up. Forgive the irony, but if I am right about the interpretation, how confident are the Government that, in making this exception, they will not open the door to legal action from other sectors arguing that they too should enjoy similar treatment?

The Bill also raises the retirement age for judges from 70 to 75, reversing a change made back in 1993. We understand the backlog in the judicial system, and we support measures to reduce the delays in bringing cases forward. There is truth in the old saying that justice delayed is justice denied, but when the Bill was being debated in the other place, concerns were raised that longevity of service might turn out to be the enemy of diversity in the system. How do Ministers respond to those concerns and what more will the Government do to enhance diversity in the judicial system, because it is important that as the country changes the institutions governing the country change with it?

The final issue on which I would like the Minister’s response is the pensions trap, which has been raised by representatives of police officers, among others. Police pensions operate differently from other public sector schemes in that they are based on a 30-year service record rather than a specific retirement age. The Police Superintendents Association, the Police Federation, the Fire Brigades Union and others have raised fears that individual scheme members in their pension schemes could lose out because of the way that the affected years between 2015 and 2022 are treated. I accept that this is a complex matter, but the end result is that a number of police officers feel that a new discrimination is being introduced by the way in which the Government are applying the remedy for the McCloud judgment. In November, the Home Office acknowledged that there is an issue and said that further work was needed. Has any further dialogue taken place with police and fire staff representatives in the past two months, and can the Minister give any further information on how the issue might be addressed?

In conclusion, we will not oppose the Bill, because we understand that the Government had to respond to the McCloud judgment, and they have a duty to ensure that pension schemes do not operate in a manner that is found to be discriminatory by the courts, but in future we will take with a pinch of salt lectures from Ministers about fiscal probity, when the Government have had to introduce legislation to correct what the Public Accounts Committee has defined as a “£17 billion mistake”. We also want assurances that proper, clear and understandable information will be made available to pension scheme members who will have to make important choices for their retirement under the mechanism that we are legislating for today.

Given that the major part of the Bill arose from a court challenge to the Government’s pension arrangements, we also ask how confident the Government are that this is the end of the story, and there will not be further legal challenges that will mean that we have to return to the issue in the future. Labour hopes that this response to the McCloud judgment settles the issues and ensures good quality pension schemes for the workers affected. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for the service that they have given and, in particular, for the outstanding service they have given over the past few years as the country has struggled with the pandemic.

Covid-19: Government Support for Business

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on economic support for business.

I want to begin by extending my best wishes to my hon. Friend—

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister will answer the question, and then you can say your piece.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

It is clear that omicron is much more transmissible than other coronavirus variants, which is why, as the Prime Minister announced on Sunday, we are offering every eligible adult a booster dose before the end of the year. To get more jabs in arms, we have taken the proportionate and responsible step of moving to plan B in England to slow the spread of covid-19.

The rapid spread of omicron means this is a challenging time for a number of sectors, including hospitality. The Chancellor will be speaking to UK hospitality representatives this afternoon to understand their concerns. The Government continue to offer considerable support to businesses that might require extra assistance into next spring, as part of the £400 billion of direct economic help that we have provided during the pandemic.

For instance, we have reduced the VAT rate for hospitality and tourism businesses to 12.5% until March. Eligible retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England are also benefiting from 66% business rates relief until March. And at the recent autumn Budget the Chancellor introduced a further 50% business rates relief for eligible businesses into the 2022-23 tax year.

Businesses can continue to apply for the additional restrictions grant until March 2022, as part of more than £2 billion of discretionary business grant funding during the pandemic. Businesses can benefit from our extension to the recovery loan scheme, which helps small and medium-sized enterprises to build back from the crisis by providing guarantees to lenders on finance of up to £10 million. Firms are also protected from eviction until March 2022 if they fall behind on their rent.

Firms in the arts and culture sector, meanwhile, can access the £2 billion culture recovery fund, the sports recovery package and the film and television production restart scheme until the end of April 2022. And our £800 million live events reinsurance scheme is giving event organisers confidence to plan ahead. Furthermore, the devolved Administrations have received an extra £12.6 billion this year, including an additional £1.3 billion in the autumn Budget.

This Government are helping businesses in every region and nation of the UK during these difficult times. We are speaking to the most affected sectors, and we will continue to respond proportionately to the virus’s changing path to support jobs, businesses and individuals, just as we have since the start of this pandemic.

[Mr McFadden]

Forgive me for my Christmas eagerness, Mr Speaker.

I extend my best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor, as she recovers from covid at home. We know where she is, but where is the Chancellor? Why did he decide to proceed with a trip to California on Tuesday, when it was already clear that UK businesses were struggling to cope with what the Prime Minister himself has called a “tidal wave” of omicron?

Even if the Chancellor is abroad, California is not exactly a communications desert. They have television, and I have even heard that they have the internet, but it is still radio silence from the Chancellor. There is tumbleweed rolling through the Treasury, which says he is in communication with officials, but what about some communication with businesses that are losing bookings by the hour and watching their December profits vanish into thin air? Last night the chief medical officer advised the public to deprioritise social contact. Adherence to that advice will have a clear and direct impact on the hospitality industry, live music, theatre and other public events across the country.

The Government documents for plan B say that the decision on economic support will be made

“based on the data at the time.”

That time is now, so let me ask the Minister this: what measures will the Government take to ensure that those who have to isolate at home have proper sick pay that enables them to follow the rules? What will the Government do to help hospitality businesses affected by the chief medical officer’s advice to deprioritise social contact? Will any support also apply to live music, theatre and other events?

What are the Government doing to maintain supply chains, should they be affected by staff absences in the coming weeks? What is the Government’s response to the hospitality industry’s call to maintain the value added tax rates for that sector at 12.5%? Will the Government also allow local authorities to release any unused funds they may have from previous covid aid packages to support businesses right now?

The principle here should be that the level of support should match the economic restrictions in place. It is not about a blank cheque; there has already been enough wasteful spending from the Government in the past two years. Any package should be timely, proportionate and properly targeted and must guard against fraud. That is why it needs the full and focused application of Treasury Ministers and officials.

We are not in lockdown, but it would be totally disingenuous to pretend that businesses can trade normally when the Prime Minister has used a special national broadcast to warn the nation of a “tidal wave” of covid infections and the chief medical officer has told us to cut back on social contact. The Government cannot pretend that nothing has changed. This is not the time to abandon businesses, so will the Minister commit to announcing a package of support by the end of today—I mean UK time, not California time—that matches the situation that British businesses and workers now face?

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. The Chancellor has been deeply engaged with business representatives throughout this pandemic and he will continue to be so. He was on a long-planned business trip to the United States, conducting Government business, and he will continue to engage today with other Ministers, with representatives of the hospitality sector and others, to hear their concerns about what further support should be required.

However, I will not be taking lessons from the right hon. Gentleman on some of these measures. Last year, when we put in place the bounce back loans, it was the shadow Chancellor at the time, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who specifically engaged constructively with the Chancellor to agree the basis for those loans. We have continued to work constructively throughout on a range of interventions for multiple sectors. We put in a package of measures at the Budget offering additional support and as of yesterday the covid additional relief fund will provide £1.5 billion for those in the supply chain to deal with some of the additional challenges. Of course the Government recognise the additional pressures that these measures and this strain of the virus bring, and of course we will engage carefully and listen carefully to those business representatives this afternoon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I welcome Pat McFadden to the Dispatch Box?

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

It takes some doing to come up with an inheritance tax aimed at people in the lowest-value properties, but that is exactly what the Chancellor and the Conservatives have done in the way they have designed the social care cap. Even the original author of the policy, Sir Andrew Dilnot, has said that the changes that the Government have made mean that

“the less well off will not gain any benefit from the cap.”

When it comes to tax, we should look at what the Government do, not what they say or the newspapers they brief. Why is the Chancellor imposing a tax rise on almost everyone to pay for a policy that will hurt those with the lowest-value properties in the country?

[Rishi Sunak]

Our social care reforms will benefit millions of people up and down the country, because they will remove the anxiety that the entirety of their assets will be swamped by ever-escalating social care costs, but that is not all they do. It is important to recognise that they also invest in the social care workforce—half a billion pounds over the next few years to upskill, train and provide development for the social care workforce, which will benefit all of us. Critically, they will also help us to tackle the social care and elective backlog that has built up. I am sure that everyone in this House will want to see that. The waiting lists were scheduled to get to unprecedented levels; we wanted to tackle that, and that is what this funding will do.

[Mr McFadden]

Families are heading into the winter facing a cost of living crisis with rising prices and the Chancellor’s tax rises on the way. Last week, the Bank of England produced even lower growth forecasts than the Office for Budget Responsibility did at the time of the Budget, and now the Bank is forecasting that inflation will rise above 5% next year. Why does the Chancellor think that the Conservatives have produced such low levels of economic growth over the past 10 years? Has this lost decade of low growth not led directly to the cost-of-living crisis, the high taxes and the inequality that people are facing today?

[Rishi Sunak]

Forgive me, Mr Speaker; I should have welcomed the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. I look forward to working with him in his new role.

With regard to the winter and energy prices, of course many people are anxious about inflation. It is something that we are grappling with. What I will say to people is that we have put in place multiple interventions to help with those costs, notably the household support fund—half a billion pounds to help millions of our most vulnerable. That comes on top of our existing support, whether it is for pensioners or for those on lower incomes, to help with energy bills that were already in place. This Government remain committed to helping people with the cost of living. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will continue to look at the situation carefully.

Draft Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 General Committees

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you for chairing our proceedings today, Ms Elliott. I am also grateful to the Minister. The truth is that it is not easy to explain a set of regulations as complex as these, but their complexity should not disguise the importance of the content of some of these measures.

The instrument could be regarded as the son or daughter of the Financial Services Act 2021, which we debated this time last year, which in itself was the son or daughter of a number of European directives, so what we are really debating here is the grandchild of some European directives. The regulations do two main things: they onshore the implementation of the Basel III requirements under the capital requirements regulation and they establish the new prudential regime for investment firms.

There is a sense of déjà vu about these regulatory debates, partly because of that family tree. We debate the same things over and over again, first in primary legislation, in this case the Financial Services Act, and then in statutory instrument form. However, it is also because there are some common themes to the whole discussion about onshoring regulations in the post-Brexit future for our financial services sector, so let me ask the Minister a few specifics about the terms of the instrument. I must say, in that regard, I am grateful that this instrument was debated in the other place yesterday and we have the benefit of their Lordships’ wisdom, for those of us who have had the chance to read that debate.

Let us start with the CRR, the regulation embodying our Basel III obligations—that is to say, the capital requirements agreed at an international level after the financial crisis. Like many of the directives we have onshored, the UK played quite a big role in writing it in the first place. First, I want to ask the Minister whether he can confirm that the onshoring of the CRR as set out in this statutory instrument does no more than change the supervisory body for implementing the Basel III rules, and does not change the terms of what the UK was going to do in that regard in any way? In other words, is it simply an onshoring process rather than a change in regulatory content?

My second question relates to the accountability framework of the PRA, who will take this job on. This issue was raised in yesterday’s debate in the Lords. As the Minister will remember, the accountability framework for the PRA was amended during our debates on the Financial Services Act so that the PRA will have to have regard to our net zero commitments. However, that condition does not kick in until January of next year; does it apply to the changes made in this statutory instrument or not?

Thirdly, paragraph 7.17 of the explanatory notes refers to capital requirements. This is not strictly covered in this instrument, but may I ask the Minister about the capital requirement rules in relation to challenger banks and the rules on MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities? As the Minister knows, the Bank of England has consulted on this. Currently, we have a tougher regime on MREL than exists in the European Union or the United States. There may be good reasons for that, given the size of our financial sector, but the mid-tier banks say that it is a barrier to their growth and to competition in the banking sector. Can the Minister tell us anything about what is happening with the MREL rules for mid-tier banks?

The other major point in this SI concerns the investment firms prudential regime. This is not simply an onshoring; it is a new regulatory regime. It applies, as the explanatory notes confirm, to “non-systemic investment firms”. In layperson’s terms, that means investment firms that, if they fall over, do not pose a threat to the whole system. The first question on that is whether there is any increased risk to the public and the taxpayer by placing these non-systemically important firms in a different regulatory regime from the biggest seven or eight companies, which are covered by the capital requirements regulation?

The Government are making a distinction between deposit-taking and non-deposit-taking institutions. The explanatory notes say that to include all firms in the CRR would entail costs that are “disproportionate, burdensome and inappropriate”. However, that is what people always say when they want to weaken regulation. The other side of that coin—whether it is disproportionate, burdensome or inappropriate—is risk. What account have the Government taken of the risks of separating out the companies into two different regimes, as this SI proposes?

As ever when there is a new task for the FCA, the question is whether it is equipped and resourced to handle it. There are reports of significant FCA vacancy rates and, of course, the organisation is still trying to recover from the London Capital & Finance scandal. How confident is the Minister that the FCA can implement the new prudential regime for investment firms mandated by this instrument?

I would like to ask the Minister a broader question about the Government's post-Brexit approach to financial services. The Chancellor has talked a lot about competitiveness being the guiding light for that, but does the Minister accept that it could set a direction that exposes the public to significantly more risk, and may not even be wanted by the financial services sector itself? I believe the Government are in danger of making a big and serious mistake here. Having left the financial services sector out of the Brexit deal, they give the impression of casting around to give the sector a deregulatory consolation prize, but that could pose big risks for the public, which we all know about.

First, there is the obvious risk that the UK could be made an easier home for illicit finance, fraud and money laundering. We already need stronger action on that front, not a weakening of the rules. Secondly, the public could be exposed to more risk in the event of company failures, and we should have learned how big those risks can be. The post-Brexit future for our financial services sector should not be a weakening of public protection in the name of competitiveness.

Finally, will the Minister therefore clarify exactly where the Government stand on this rhetoric about competitiveness? Is it really the Treasury’s view that we should advertise around the world as a place where the referee will be weaker? If that is not the case, why does the Chancellor continually talk up competitiveness as the key factor in post-Brexit financial services regulation?

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points, and congratulate him on his elevation to his new position. I am surprised, given the talent in the Opposition ranks, that he is still doubling up and wants to do this job as well, but I am delighted to see him here today, and hope that I will not have to see him here again. He raised six substantive points, which I am happy to go through. His characterisation of the draft regulations as being the grandchildren of the EU directives is reasonable and, as ever, puts things in a clear frame of reference.

First, the right hon. Gentleman asked me for some reassurance concerning the equivalent supervisory authority of the regime to deal with Basel III. I can totally reassure him that the authorities will ensure that they are not sub-equivalent to Basel. That means the Treasury working with the PRA and the FCA to place great importance on international standing, which will help to ensure that baseline level of resilience. As he acknowledges, the UK was critical in shaping the Basel standards, and we will continue, even in the new regime, to ensure that safety and soundness are at the core of our objectives.

The right hon. Gentleman’s second point related to the point made yesterday in the other place with respect to the “have regard to” amendments to the FS Act. Obviously, our amendment to include a requirement to have regard to the net zero carbon target will apply after 1 January 2022. That means that the PRA does not need to have regard to climate change considerations in making the Basel III rules, nor the FCA in making the IFPR rules for 1 January 2022. That was done to ensure that there was no delay in implementing the Basel III reforms and the IFPR, but it will be for the regulators to determine going forward how the new duty will operate in practice. The Government anticipate that it should function in much the same way as other obligations during the PRA’s implementation of Basel III standards, such as the need to have regard to the ability of firms to continue to provide finance to business and consumers in the United Kingdom. The key point is that, subsequent to the implementation agreed in the Act, they will have an ongoing obligation to have regard to these matters.

[Mr McFadden]

That sounds like quite an important omission. We do not need to go over the history of it, but the Government themselves tabled an amendment saying that the regulators had to have regard to our net zero obligations. If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that it does not apply to the draft regulations, which implement the Basel III regulations—the main international post-financial-crisis measure of regulating banks to ensure that the taxpayer is not on the hook in the future. Is that not quite an important omission from the green direction that both of us want to see for financial regulation?

[John Glen]

No, I do not think so. I think the Opposition accepted the Government’s amendment with respect to its provisions on the timescale. That should not withdraw the urgent need to implement the Basel standards and the consultation process, which would have to have been repeated should we have had to wait until 1 January. That does not mean to say that on an enduring basis that will not be a consideration that the PRA and the FCA will need to have regard to.

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman’s asked about the ongoing discussions around MREL for challenger banks. The Bank of England is leading that review, and is currently considering the responses to its consultation. I have received a number of representations and discussed the matter with several challenger banks. I am grateful to the industry for its engagement on that review. The Bank will respond in due course, but I should not imagine that it will be too far away.

The right hon. Gentleman moved on to ask about the classification of systemic and non-systemic banks, and used the expression “too big to fail” around how those definitions will work. There is no attempt to somehow manipulate those classifications for deregulatory effect; it is simply the case that there are much smaller firms that do not have that systemic risk. Therefore, it would be appropriate, within the context of the rules and frameworks of the FCA, for them to be under its jurisdiction. The same will not be true of those that are larger, but there is no motivation behind that other than to find the most appropriate regulator to do the most appropriate regulation.

The right hon. Gentleman then asked about the capacity of the FCA to deal with the new obligations, in the context of the outcomes of some of the challenges that it faced after LC&F. I obviously keep in regular contact with the chief executive of the FCA; indeed, I am speaking to him tomorrow afternoon. There is no question of its resourcing being somehow challenged to take on that responsibility. We discussed the matter with the FCA at length prior to the passage of the Financial Services Act earlier this year. That is a matter for the FCA, but I am convinced that it is in a good place to continue.

The right hon. Gentleman then asked a broader question about competitiveness, and characterised the motivation of the Chancellor and the Government as to perhaps offer a deregulatory pathway to industry. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was able to attend the UK Finance dinner last week. I hope that he noted the emphasis that I placed in my speech on the need not to differentiate our position on deregulation. Indeed, the consultation on a secondary growth and competitiveness objective does not in any way undermine, or seek to undermine, the primacy of high regulatory standards, which have distinguished our regulators and financial system for a very long time.

I hope that that addresses the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, and I will conclude by briefly reiterating the purposes of the instrument. It enables the implementation of Basel III standards, which is key to the UK’s international standing. It updates and accounts for the new IFPR definitions and takes FCA investment firms out of the scope of the UK resolution regime to reflect the new proportionate IFPR regime. Finally, it irons out some of the wrinkles of existing EU regulation. The measures will give UK firms certainty over the final elements of the Basel III standards and IFPR regimes, and I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Community Debt Advice Services

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you for chairing our proceedings this morning, Ms Bardell. I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for securing the debate, and thank all hon. Members representing different parts of the country for their contributions.

When people fall into serious debt that they cannot manage, it is one of the most stressful experiences in life. Multiple debts can lead to people feeling overwhelmed, being pursued by creditors, having mental health problems, in some cases losing their home, and, in even worse cases, trying to take their own life. I begin by paying tribute to the advisers who are trying to help people in those circumstances: to the citizens advice bureau and other agencies in my city of Wolverhampton, and to all those around the country that we have heard about this morning.

We come to this issue after a year and a half of the pandemic. The pandemic had contrasting effects around the country for people, financially. It was, in many ways, a tale of two Britains. In one Britain, people were able to work from home, were paid at or near their full salary, and yet saw their expenditure reduce—they were no longer spending on holidays, restaurants or other forms of entertainment—and were able to save money. That is the key factor behind the rise in bank deposits that we saw during the pandemic—something that happened not just in this country, but in most comparable countries. That is the story of one Britain.

However, the other Britain that we have been hearing about this morning is a very different story. Here, families on low incomes saw their expenses increase. They were at home with the heating on all day. They had children who were off school, who needed to be fed more at home than was usually the case. Those families could not afford holidays or eating out in the first place, so they were not saving anything through the absence of those options, yet they had extra expenditure pressures and, of course, some people fell through the gaps in the various Government support schemes, be that furlough, self-employed grants or other support. For those families, the pandemic was really tough financially, and it added hugely to the pressures they were already under.

That took place over the past 18 months, but right now, looking forward, we have rising inflation, rising energy bills and a series of tax rises that will come into force in April next year. The charity StepChange estimates that 14 million people faced a fall in their incomes at the start of the pandemic, and most of those did not experience a quick recovery. It estimates that 4.3 million people are behind on bills such as council tax, rent or utilities. One in three of those who are in difficulty have had to resort to measures such as skipping meals or rationing the use of utilities, and one in four of those who accessed payment holidays during the pandemic have subsequently missed a payment. It is against that background that the Money and Pensions Service is changing how debt advice will be delivered.

As we have heard, debt advice is crucially important, because it can make the difference between someone being overwhelmed by their debts and their finding a way to control them and, hopefully, pay them off over time. Good advice on that front can make the difference between a person being evicted and their keeping their home, and in some cases, as we have heard, it can actually save lives. I acknowledge the work that the Government have done to institute a breathing space that gives people protection from enforcement action for a specific period during which a manageable repayment plan is organised; but access to that breathing space is itself dependent on accessing proper debt advice. The Government have put more money into debt advice since the start of the pandemic, acknowledging the rise in need that is reflected in the figures that have been quoted over and over again in this debate. However, the balance of how that money is spent is changing markedly, from face-to-face advice to online and telephone advice. That is the crux of what we have been talking about this morning.

Of course, it might be that online and telephone advice is suitable for some people, and can help them with their problems. We all understand that the world is changing, and that we should make use of technology in delivering public services—nobody is arguing for the world to stand still. However, online advice will not be suitable for everyone, particularly those with the most complex debt needs, and the fear being expressed this morning is that if the right balance is not struck, people could lose out on the face-to-face advice that they need, with some very damaging consequences for them. Right now, it is feared that the number of face-to-face advisers could be cut by around two thirds under the plans that have been put forward.

Let me quickly give the Minister some examples of where that face-to-face advice is particularly valuable. I am grateful to the debt advisers who took part in a call with me yesterday in preparation for this debate. The first point is literacy: a significant proportion of the people with the most complex debt needs may also have literacy problems. They do not always find it easy to navigate online forums or to realise immediately the key parts of a letter that they might have received, and as we have heard this morning, some people cannot even face opening correspondence because they know the direction in which their situation is heading. It is not always easy for people to admit that they have a literacy problem, but this is an area in which a face-to-face adviser can provide invaluable help.

The second point is privacy. In some cases, domestic violence or fear of a partner can be an important factor. We have heard about financial intimidation within households: people in those circumstances do not want a phone call to be overheard, or their partner seeing which website they are on or who they might be talking to online. Again, face-to-face contact can provide that level of privacy. Thirdly, representation to courts can be crucial, such as in threatened eviction cases. That is often based on local knowledge of key local authority or court officials. It is very unlikely that a call to a call centre or the use of an online service will replicate that kind of targeted local intervention, and those interventions can make a big difference. As such, my plea to the Minister is this: if debt advice is to be reformed, let us ensure that those who need face-to-face advice can still get it.

One feature of debt advice is that people sometimes do not seek it until very late in the day—maybe just a day or two before they face drastic action from a creditor. A face-to-face adviser can know the urgency and make a lot of calls very quickly. We should ask ourselves whether an online service will really deal with urgent situations like that. There is also a problem with which we MPs are all familiar—the need to read between the lines. A person might come to see us with one problem, but as they talk, more and more comes out. We have all had cases like that, and often the initial thing that they raise is not really the biggest thing that has gone wrong in their life. That is something that we all recognise from our advice surgeries, and it is far easier to spot in a face-to-face meeting than through another channel.

The other factor here is that it is hard for the organisations involved to speak up, because they are bidding for money from the contracts and are worried that if they speak up too loudly, they might get on the wrong side of the Money and Pensions Service, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Treasury or somebody who is involved in making the decision. However, these issues have been raised with us, and they deserve serious consideration by Ministers.

Nobody wants the world to stand still. We all understand that the way that services are delivered is changing. As I say, that might suit many people, but my plea to the Minister is not to design a service that cuts off the possibility of face-to-face advice for people who need it. If that happens, the problem is that we will not know about the evictions that could have been prevented. We will not know about the problems that might have been headed off, if only advisers had been able to see people and talk to them. We will not know about the mental health problems that go undiagnosed or untreated. We will not know about the person with literacy problems who did not get the help that might have made a difference to them, because many of the people with the most complex needs might not access the advice at all.

I acknowledge that, overall, the Government have put extra money into this field during the pandemic and the last couple of years, but the money going into face-to-face advice specifically is being reduced. I appeal to the Minister, his colleagues and MaPS to structure the contracts in a way that ensures that face-to-face advice is there for those who need it and that the local knowledge in these services, which is so important, is not lost.

Climate Goals: Wellbeing Economy

Pat McFadden Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Thank you for your chairmanship today, Mr Betts. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate and thank all the hon. Members who have taken part over the past hour or so.

The debate on the relationship between wellbeing and the traditional economic growth measure of GDP has been going on for a long time. We welcome an emphasis on wellbeing and on not measuring everything purely by traditional economic statistics. As we have heard, there are deficiencies in GDP. For example, it tells us nothing about equality or the level of social inclusion in a society. That is what it does not include, but it does include things we might not want to include, such as measures of waste or of throwaway goods that are bad for our environment.

As a material measure of output, GDP is certainly not the same as general happiness. That is why in my party, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) has argued that the Office for National Statistics should measure health and happiness through a healthy living index. We have heard about what the Welsh Labour Government are doing, putting wellbeing at the heart of their thinking.

As we transition to a cleaner and greener economy, we will want to take into account other things, most obviously the sources of our energy and how renewable they are. We will want to ask different questions—not just, “What did you produce?” but, “How did you produce that?” All that will have to be a greater part of our economic thinking. We do, after all, have only one planet, and we have a duty to cherish and preserve it for future generations.

This debate also forces a discussion on not only the costs of acting, but the costs of not acting. The Office for Budget Responsibility report earlier this year was very clear on that point. If we delay taking the necessary action on the transition to net zero, it will not make the costs disappear. Instead, it will increase them in the longer run, adding to our debt and our deficit, and loading further costs on the taxpayer. That is why Labour announced at our recent conference a commitment to investing in this transition year on year for a decade.

That commitment will help to ensure that the homes we live in are heated in a sustainable way. In so doing, it will create many jobs, reduce people’s heating bills and make a material contribution to the wellbeing we have heard about today. We will also want to invest in the charging infrastructure for low-carbon transport, and many of the other changes we need. That is what we want to do.

Let us not be entirely dismissive of GDP and the importance of economic growth. For the past decade, we have had, as it were, a real-world experiment in what it is like to live through low growth. We have high taxes now because economic growth has been low. That anaemic growth over the past decade means that we are a less prosperous country than we would have been had we had higher growth rates—for example, the kind of growth rates that we had in the first decade of this century. That has borne down on real incomes and on public services and their capacity to improve wellbeing.

Low economic growth over the past decade has adversely impacted on the quality of life in places such as Wolverhampton, which I represent, the Black Country and many other parts of the country. It has left the public square impoverished and degraded. In arguing for a broader view, we should not make the mistake of thinking that low growth or no growth is a good thing. The experience of low growth over the past decade suggests that that is very much not the case. I am all for a broader definition, I am all for greener growth, but I also want to see prosperity in every part of the country.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

Minister, you have 10 minutes, which will leave a couple of minutes for the mover of the motion to wind up at the end.