Covid-19: Access to and Acceptance of Cash

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to speak in the debate, and I echo the congratulations that have been offered to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing it, and on his clear exposition of the scope of the challenges that we and our communities face in access to and use of cash.

I want to express my good cheer at the fact that there is such a level of common purpose in the Chamber today. That does not happen as often as we might like, but there is clear agreement here. I want to pick up on something that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. He described himself as old school, because he still uses cheques. I cannot speak for anyone else in the Chamber, but I also use them. I can go one better, because recently, having forgotten my cheque book, I had cause to buy that quaint old relic called a postal order, which is very unfashionable. I was quite surprised; I had not bought one for about 35 years, and they look really quite sexy now—far different from how they used to look.

There was a debate similar to this one at the end of May last year, covering many of the same issues; again, that was referred to by the hon. Member for Strangford. All the issues we would expect were debated: how for some of us cash is convenient but for others it is a vital budgeting tool; the level of control that it offers, which digital transactions do not; and the fact that there is a sensible reason why debt charities always advise those living with damaging levels of debt to cut up their cards as a first step to regaining some financial control. Members around the Chamber have repeatedly referred to the way our cash machines are disappearing from our high streets—faster than snow off a dyke. Some businesses do not accept cash payments at all, and some 1.3 million people in the UK do not have a bank account and already suffer financial exclusion. Those problems were highlighted even before covid-19 and the need to factor in the effect of cash not being accepted in the current climate. The same arguments and concerns have rightly been repeated today.

How different the world looks now, only 19 short months after that debate in May last year. Now we are living with covid-19. We live in a world where the cash network has been placed under increasing strain, pushing it ever closer to collapse. Alongside that, as we have heard from many Members today, there is a continuing trend for considerable shrinkage in the availability of free-to-use cash links in communities; 9,500 have been lost since 2017, and it is feared that further losses are on the way. More than a third of bank branches have been lost in less than five years, and we can all guess that there will be further bank closures to come. That is extremely worrying, because for many of our constituents cash is not just the preferred way of payment—although for many that is the case; for many, cash is the only purchasing method at their disposal, as you said, Ms Fovargue.

The hon. Member for Strangford also reminded us that cash is something that we all sometimes need to rely on, whether we like it or not, because of technical glitches with card machines, and even some high-profile IT glitches in the banking world. I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding us of that.

The Chancellor committed to introducing legislation to protect access to cash in March 2020; however, the pandemic has dramatically shortened the timeframe needed for intervention, and unless it is introduced urgently the ability to get access to cash and spend it could be permanently lost to many consumers, causing significant harm and financial exclusion.

The speed of the stampede away from cash and towards digital payments is fine for some people, and good luck to them. However, the price of that speed is that many are left behind. The consumer body Which?—many have referred to its excellent work on the matter—revealed that 85% of us would find it difficult to live our lives without the ability to withdraw cash. That makes the 23% rise in pay-to-use cash machines, particularly concentrated in socially deprived areas, all the more worrying. I share the concerns highlighted by the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen).

This speeding towards digital payments, which were taking hold before covid, has accelerated at an astonishing rate in the current climate, and that has quickened the decline of our high street cash machines and bank branches. The loss of bank branches has affected my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran. I believe it is one of the worst hit in the UK when we consider the distance to the next bank, although I take on board the challenges that the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) talked about in his rural constituency. These matters have been repeatedly raised in the Commons by me and other Members. I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the pressing need for banking hubs. It is really important that they are expedited in all our communities that have suffered.

[Rushanara Ali in the Chair]

Covid has made the situation of our cash infrastructure all the more perilous. As we have heard, many retailers are simply refusing to accept cash. During the global pandemic, when there is already no end of serious matters to contend with, too many of our constituents have to contend with their lives being made unnecessarily difficult because they cannot pay for the goods and services they need with cash, as the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) set out.

Research by Which? showed that in May, one in 10 people had been unable to pay for items with cash during lockdown because they were refused by the retailer. Of that number, 26% were unable to purchase the items that they needed as they had no alternative to cash. In October, Which? found that four out of 10 of those who responded to its survey left a shop empty handed when they tried to pay for groceries with cash. The right hon. Gentleman also highlighted that. As we have heard, action on access to cash is utterly meaningless if the widespread acceptance of cash is lost in our shops. We urgently need the Financial Conduct Authority to publish a UK-wide tracker of levels of cash acceptance.

I echo the calls for the Minister to set out what interventions his Government will take to ensure that people, especially those who rely on cash, can continue to use it to pay for essential goods and services. There is currently an absence of legislation to protect such access to cash. Alongside that, we need an impact assessment of the effect of cash refusal on consumers, to consider the relationship between the acceptance of cash and consumer access to it.

The genuine fear that we have heard today is that cash payment options have been fatally and profoundly—but, I hope, not irreversibly—affected to the point where the post-covid use of cash in our society is on its death bed. I suppose we are here today to see whether it can be resuscitated. The UK Government have a duty to ensure that access to cash does not disappear, for the sake of our rural and socioeconomically challenged communities, which particularly rely on that medium.

Following the UK Government’s legislative proposals to protect access to cash, the proposal to give the Financial Conduct Authority the responsibility for overseeing access to cash is to be welcomed. Alongside that, it is important that the Financial Conduct Authority is given proper teeth. It needs comprehensive powers to ensure strategic and comprehensive regulation.

It seems clear that expediting those proposals has become ever more urgent, given that the diminishing of the cash infrastructure has been accelerated in recent months. The Financial Conduct Authority should be given a statutory duty to protect our cash infrastructure. It should be responsible for monitoring and reporting on levels of cash access, as well as designing and implementing a framework funded by the industry by which a minimum level of access to cash can be maintained. Our cash infrastructure will not be sustainable without that level of intervention from the Government. We can already see it crumbling before our eyes at a shocking rate, as every single participant in the debate has mentioned.

In addition, the Government should set out a clear timetable—others have also called for this—for introducing a Bill to Parliament as soon as possible. That should include the detail, scope and contents of the proposed legislation, with a clear exposition of how it will build on and complement current work being done to protect consumers’ ability to access cash. I know that Conservative Governments are often reluctant to have such direct intervention on such matters, but when direct intervention is required, the Government must be brave enough to make that intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

The Government absolutely recognise—I am not going to comment on the shape of what is to come, because I do not think that would be appropriate—the concern about free access to cash. As the hon. Lady will know, a lot of work has been done on trying to preserve inclusivity in the face of markets and pandemic-induced change that may be prejudicing that access.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jesse Norman]

I really do not have much time, and I want to respond to the comments and to give my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys the chance to wind up, so let me press on with a couple of key things.

It is worth mentioning that the industry is already taking action to support cashback. Mastercard and Visa have already announced incentives, and of course we have the community access to cash pilots.

The set of authorities that govern this area has been raised. It is important to say that the Government’s view is that the FCA may well be best positioned to take on the function of co-ordinating in an overall responsible way, while we also intend for the PSR and the Bank of England to continue their existing functions. As colleagues will know, the FCA already has a statutory objective to secure an appropriate degree of protection for consumers and existing regulatory relationships with industry.

My hon. Friend asked about wholesale cash distribution. As I think he knows, there was a previous consultation paper by the Bank of England on the future of the wholesale cash distribution model, which set out a high-level road map. A lot of work is being done between the Treasury and the Bank to address those issues.

The hon. Member for Makerfield will be aware that there are existing policies within the LINK ATM network, in particular, to protect the distribution of free cash through ATMs. The Treasury is supporting the Bank of England in trying to enable a sustainable model—sustainability is important—to permit effective wholesale cash distribution.

I ought to sit down now. I thank colleagues very much indeed for their interesting and constructive contributions to the debate.

Future of Financial Services

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

I thank my hon. Friend her for her warm comments. She is right to say that we need that finance to develop new technologies, which have helped to meet our climate ambitions. To give a couple of examples, we can be a world leader in carbon capture and storage, and similarly for offshore wind—those are the kinds of investments that will need extra financing to help develop those technologies, or further their export capabilities, and that is exactly the type of investment that this new capital will help to fund.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I confess I was surprised to hear the Chancellor say that he was grateful to the people who are keeping local bank branches open. I now have seven towns in my constituency with no bank, and only three that do have access to a local bank—it is surely the hardest hit in the UK. If he really wants to help people to keep bank branches open, when will he do more to ensure and help facilitate banking hubs in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran, and across Scotland?

[Rishi Sunak]

The hon. Lady will have heard my previous answer about our plans to take forward initiatives on access to cash, and protecting it. The outstanding consultation will conclude shortly, and then we will decide on a future legislative strategy.

Lockdown: Economic Support

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Barclay]

The coach firms sector has been particularly impacted as a consequence of covid. That is why, in response, we worked with the Department for Education to provide over £70 million of funding for local transport. That has been to the benefit of many, including coach firms. Of course, the wider package of support—for example, the furlough scheme, the cash grants of up to £3,000 for businesses that are closed, the extended loans and so on—applies to the sector as it does to others. The wider package applies, but I also draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the specific education funding that has been provided, which I know has been a help to a number of coach firms.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

If there were no confusion about the furlough support for Scotland in the event of another lockdown, the right hon. Gentleman’s own Tory MPs and Members across the House would not need to constantly have to ask for clarification. That confusion and uncertainty is a failure of his own Government, after the Communities Secretary said that it would be for the Chancellor to decide at the time of any future Scottish lockdown. Will the Chief Secretary apologise for that confusion and uncertainty? Will he meet the Scottish Finance Secretary, who has been requesting a meeting since Saturday, to discuss funding for Scotland and put an end to the chaos, confusion and uncertainty which is detrimentally affecting jobs and businesses in Scotland?

[Steve Barclay]

I do find it somewhat surprising to be asked to have a meeting the day after I had a meeting with the First Minister of Scotland, who I assume spoke with the authority of the Scottish Finance Minister. I have regular meetings with the Scottish Finance Minister. I hope, and certainly feel from my point of view, that we have a very constructive dialogue. It is in part due to her representations that the Barnett guarantee—this unprecedented up-front guarantee—was put in place, and I look forward to further discussions with her in the weeks ahead.

Draft Restriction of Public Sector Exit Payments Regulations 2020

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 21st September 2020 General Committees

[Steve Barclay]

I will come on to the distinction between those on large payments, where I think there is a degree of consensus in the House, and how the waivers will address some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members expressed in the previous debate on this issue. I will come on to that if he gives me a moment, and if he then wants to come back with an intervention, I will be very happy to accept it.

Exit payments are important to an employer’s ability to reform and to react to new circumstances. They are also an important source of support for individuals as they find new employment or as a bridge to retirement age. That is why the Government are taking forward these important regulations to cap public sector exit payments at £95,000. The level of the cap amounts to almost six times the maximum statutory redundancy payment. On an average salary of £24,897, the average person would have to work almost four years to earn £95,000, while someone working 35 hours a week on the national living wage would have to work around six years to earn £95,000—and that ignores the fact that the first £30,000 is paid tax-free. As such, it is clear that a £95,000 cap will still offer a significant level of compensation while ensuring value for money for the public finances. In fact, I think that the majority of our constituents would regard it as a generous amount.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Minister has talked about trying to address some concerns. What can he tell Members about how he will address the concerns expressed by the nuclear workers who were given specific guarantees about their pensions that have been repeatedly overridden?

[Steve Barclay]

I very much welcome that intervention, because that concern was raised by a number of Opposition Members when we debated this issue in the House previously. We have agreed a waiver that will apply to nuclear decommissioning as part of the draft regulations. I will come on to the wider point about how the waiver will apply, but the exemption that applies to nuclear decommissioning illustrates that we have taken on board some of the concerns that Opposition Members have raised.

I am grateful to all members of the public, employers, unions and others who submitted their views as part of the consultation process. The consultation in April 2019 received more than 600 responses, which helped inform the final regulations following the earlier consultation in 2015, which had more than 4,000 responses. I am also grateful to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends for their representations during the development of the policies.

The Government’s intention was made clear at the start, which was to apply the cap to all public sector workers. As the 2015 consultation stated, it would apply to

“all bodies classified within central and local government and non-financial public corporation sectors as determined by the Office for National Statistics for National Account purposes, with a small number of exceptions.”

The 2019 consultation stated:

“The government is proposing a staged process of implementation across the public sector. The first stage will capture most public sector employees, before extending the cap to the rest of the public sector in the second stage. Prioritising in this way will ensure most exit payments in the public sector are limited to £95,000 without further delay, while work continues on expanding the scope of the regulations.”

To ensure fairness and consistency and to give taxpayers confidence that their money is being spent properly, it is right that all public sector bodies are immediately in scope, with limited exceptions, such as the one I just referred to. The consultation in 2019 proposed capturing public sector bodies in two stages. Many of the responses objected to that proposal. We have therefore revised the proposal and reverted to applying the cap to all public sector bodies at once. The Government’s intention to cap exit payments has now been in the public domain for more than five years, providing public sector bodies and employees with sufficient time to communicate their views, including through the consultation process, and to prepare for the implementation of the cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I took that point away from the previous debate and was concerned to show the House that we had listened. In fact, it echoes the next line of my speech: I do accept that in some circumstances it will be appropriate for employees to receive an exit payment of more than £95,000.

[Patricia Gibson]

rose—

[Steve Barclay]

I am always generous in taking interventions. I was trying to answer the hon. Gentleman’s legitimate challenge, but I will of course take the hon. Lady’s intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

May I just ask the Minister, for the purpose of clarity, whether he is saying that he will exempt nuclear decommissioning workers? Magnox is on the list here, so unless the Minister has been very clear and I have not listened properly, I wonder whether he will clarify that point.

[Steve Barclay]

I am very happy to share with the hon. Lady the detail of that waiver as it relates to the pensions of Nuclear Decommissioning Authority workers. The waiver will apply in respect of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. That includes—

[Patricia Gibson]

An exemption?

[Steve Barclay]

If the hon. Lady will allow me to answer the question, I was going to read out the exact legal prose. Sometimes we are accused of not being precise enough, so I was going to go straight to the legal text for her. It says:

“made to or on behalf of an employee…who is employed…by a company or other body holding a site licence granted under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 for one or more nuclear-licenced sites…and on a site that is subject of a decommissioning programme agreed between the NDA and the BEIS Secretary of State, and…whose employment is terminated”—

details follow accordingly. So there is an exemption there.

I will come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. In fact, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, who has not as yet spoken, said in the previous debate that she accepted the wider principle of exit payment caps, but had some concerns. We have sought to look at, and listen to, the concerns that Opposition Members have raised. I accept that there are some circumstances in which it is appropriate for employees to receive an exit payment over £95,000, including where imposing the cap would cause genuine hardship. We are committed to ending taxpayer-funded six-figure payouts for the best-paid public sector workers, but it is appropriate that the waiver system can be exercised with ministerial discretion if it is felt that implementing the cap would go against the original principles and result in hardship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I shall try to be brief. I support what has been said by the hon. Member for Ilford North, who is concerned about equality impact assessments, and how the measure has unintended consequences that have not yet been addressed. No one—not the Scottish National party and probably not any other party—has any objection to the general principle of a public sector exit payment cap. However, I note that the measure before the Committee gives rise to concern about waivers in cases of unfair dismissal and health and safety-related detriment. The waiver process is a matter of concern.

The SNP does not—and I certainly do not—support the statutory instrument. It is singularly unfair to those in the nuclear decommissioning industry. Those workers have suffered cuts to their pensions in the recent past, and that is a cause of profound concern to all those in the industry, not least those in my constituency who are employed at Hunterston. Some history, if you will give me latitude, Sir Christopher, is important. When the nuclear estate was privatised in the 1980s, the Tory Government under Margaret Thatcher gave guarantees requiring the new private sector employers to continue to provide pension benefits for those employed at the time of privatisation. The phrase used at the time to describe that settlement was,

“at least as good as those they were receiving in the public sector.”

Where we have had revisions to the pension arrangements of nuclear decommissioning workers on more than one occasion in fairly recent years, we know that commitment has been abandoned. Now there is the prospect of these exit payment caps.

The UK Government have decided that, because the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is classified as public sector, these schemes fall under public sector arrangements, but clearly these pensions are not public sector pensions. Decommissioning sites are now in the private sector and, unlike for every other public sector worker, redundancy is an inherent part of their job.

The Minister seems to have said and to have put on the record today that all nuclear decommissioning workers will be exempted from the public sector exit payments cap. We should have had sight of that commitment—if I have understood him correctly and that is his commitment. We should have had that commitment long before now, and we should have had commitments and guarantees to employees of Magnox Ltd and others affected by the Enterprise Act 2016.

I note that Magnox is specifically mentioned, but the way I read this, the provisions on relaxing the cap contained within the regulations are not adequate and not sufficient to give comfort to nuclear decommissioning workers that they are indeed exempted in the way I know the Minister wishes them to be, and as they should be. The regulations should be drawn specifically to exclude those workers in nuclear decommissioning and I would like to see more specificity on that.

It seems that, because of that lack of specificity, we have been asked to agree on something here today in which there is a lack of clarity, from what I can see. We know that nuclear decommissioning workers do a very highly skilled job and that their job is sometimes dangerous, but to be caught up again, after all the cuts to their pensions in recent years, in attacks on their pensions through these public sector exit payments regulations is not acceptable. As we speak, it is creating disincentives for people to work, to be recruited and to stay in that industry, and it is extremely bad for morale.

Nuclear decommissioning workers who have contacted me, and who I know will have contacted any MP who has a nuclear plant in their constituency, are concerned. I am sorry to say that, when it comes to their pensions, they are right to be concerned, because it can be seen that the agreements they thought they had with the UK Government over several decades and the guarantees they were given are not being honoured.

When I raised this with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury three years ago, I was told that,

“it is necessary to have terms and conditions that reflect the modern situation that applies across the economy as a whole.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 769.]

How does that square with the cast-iron guarantees made to these workers when the nuclear estate was privatised? They were not told that those cast-iron guarantees were actually written on water.

The problem is that these workers are classed as public sector workers, but their terms and conditions are not devolved to the Scottish Parliament, as they are for other public sector workers. Scottish nuclear workers still have their severance and early retirement terms dictated by the UK Government, but the goalposts have clearly been moved when it is deemed financially beneficial for the Government or the industry, while the pension interests of the workers always seem to be a secondary consideration.

The Office for National Statistics has classed Magnox as a public sector organisation despite the fact that it works on sites that have been privatised. The draft guidance from the Government uses the definition of a public authority contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which includes bodies specifically listed in schedules to the Act, publicly owned companies and any other body designated as a public authority by the Secretary of State. Interestingly, Magnox is not listed in the schedules, and that is because it is privately and not publicly owned. Consequently, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to Magnox, except where stipulated in employee contracts with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and so neither do the IR35 reforms.

We have confusion and concern among nuclear decommissioning workers. That continues, and it is not acceptable. As we pontificate over these exit payment caps, I urge the Minister to remember that any change and any further attacks on these workers is a betrayal of the guarantees that they have had. We have been told today of waivers or exemptions—I am not even quite sure what the Minister is suggesting—but Magnox’s inclusion in part 1 of these regulations makes anything he says now equivocal. We need a clear statement that the measures will not affect nuclear decommissioning workers. That is a simple ask that needs a yes or no answer, and I look forward to the Minister giving me that yes or no answer.

Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I beg to move

That this House welcomes the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and calls on the Government to examine, improve and extend that scheme’s operation and application to ensure that people who started work after the furlough scheme started are included and that this support continues until the UK’s economy is more robust, so that the goal of retaining as many jobs as possible is secured.

I first applied for this debate in May, but the matters at hand are as relevant now as they were at that time, and perhaps even more so as we continue to struggle with the challenges of covid-19 and its serious and far-reaching consequences. I wish to say at the outset that I will not press for a vote on the motion, because it would simply eat into the talking time in the next important debate.

The job retention scheme was established by the UK Government. At the time, it was a very welcome response to the disruption caused by the virus, helping to keep workers and families afloat during difficult times. It would be wrong, indeed churlish, to say anything else. I know that this point will be explored in the next debate, but every single MP in the House will have had emails from constituents who have been deprived of any support through no fault of their own—the newly employed, the newly self-employed, freelancers and so on. The injustice of being excluded from support has profound consequences for those affected. For six months, some have had no wages coming in, and for far too many there is no end in sight to their troubles.

For these people, this issue should have been quickly addressed by the Chancellor, when the up to 3 million excluded came to light. It should have been addressed and still can be addressed, but it has not been, so their debts are building, their futures are uncertain and they are simply being ignored. Hearing, as we have many times in this Chamber, of the Chancellor’s bounty for other workers does not pay their bills; it only increases their sense of being overlooked and ignored. The words “We are all in this together” ring hollow and mocking in their ears, and we shall hear more about that in the next debate. Now we face the situation of the job retention scheme being wound down at the end of October, with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people losing their jobs.

In previous debates, Government Members met the common-sense arguments in favour of extending furlough with cries of “This scheme can’t last forever”, and I presume that that is because they simply cannot answer why it needs to be wound down in October. Extending the furlough scheme by a mere eight months could save 61,000 jobs in Scotland alone. In much of Europe support schemes are being extended, not curtailed, with Germany investing 4% of its annual income in recovery compared with the UK’s feeble 1.3%.

We must save jobs that are sustainable in the longer term until our economy is more robust. Many self-employed people—people overlooked entirely by the job retention scheme—must also be included, otherwise we will face a wave of job losses and millions will face enormous ongoing financial hardship, with some sectors of our economy taking years to recover and some jobs lost forever.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend talks about some sectors struggling and transport, in particular aviation, would be one of those sectors. Does she agree that if the Government do not extend a version of the furlough scheme for all sectors they should at least be looking at doing so for specific sectors that are really struggling?

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We need sectoral support, and some areas are desperately looking for help, but we also need to extend this scheme in general.

To wind down the scheme and withdraw all support at the end of October, just as payment holidays are ending, will do huge damage to workers and their families, as many will face losing their homes and any hope of financial recovery. Tens of thousands of viable jobs could be saved with an extension of support. We know, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, that the aviation and aerospace industries and the tourism and hospitality sectors are struggling badly, as are our night-time industries. They have been hit very hard, and the Institute for Public Policy Research has estimated that 3 million jobs could be lost, most of which would remain viable in the longer term if support were to continue.

The Fraser of Allander Institute reports that 55% of Scottish businesses using the job retention scheme expect to reduce employee numbers when it ends.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

Like the hon. Lady, I have had letters and emails from people in similar situations, and I am sure everyone here has a great deal of sympathy. She mentioned the importance of maintaining jobs that are going to be viable after this is all over, but one of the things most people are saying to me is, “We don’t know what the new normal is going to be like,” so how is she going to choose between jobs that are going to be viable and those which will just be fundamentally changed because their industries are changed as a result of consumers behaving differently once the pandemic is over?

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the whole point is that we do not know. We need to get our economy on an even keel; we need to make sure it is healthier so that then the damage can be assessed—but what a crime it is to throw away viable jobs because we think that some jobs will not be viable. There are potentially millions of jobs that are saveable here, and I think investing in our jobs is a price worth paying in order to save the vast majority, because that is what the experts are telling us.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Patricia Gibson]

I will make some progress.

Many businesses are awaiting further lockdown easing before some or all of their staff return to pre-covid working hours. Numerous other viable businesses are simply not in a position to keep staff in their jobs without this crucial support. Indeed, in our own island communities, such as the Isle of Arran in my constituency and the Isle of Cumbrae, there has been even greater disruption with the necessity of capacity restrictions on ferries. With the main tourism season drawing to a close, further support for viable jobs is essential.

Government Members continue to throw their hands in the air and ask, “For how long should support continue?”, to which we on the SNP Benches reply, “For as long as necessary to save tens of thousands of viable jobs, perhaps millions in the longer term.” We say: we want the Chancellor to keep his word when he said he would do “whatever it takes” to save jobs. Let us put to bed this economic illiteracy about what that would cost. The direct cost to the Government of extending furlough would be offset by income tax and national insurance contributions paid on the wages of those remaining on furlough and by savings on unemployment benefits that would not need to be paid. The net cost of extending the furlough scheme across the UK would be around £10 billion, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. We also need to factor in how that would help economic growth and leave public debt slightly lower as a share of GDP than if the scheme were closed down next month, and that is before we factor in the likely significant social cost of not extending the scheme. Without an extension, unemployment is likely to be as high as 10%.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I accept many of the points that the hon. Lady is making, but does she also accept that some of the jobs she is talking about will not be viable when the furlough scheme ends and that extending it would delay the opportunities to retrain or accept jobs in other sectors?

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but again we hear the argument that, because some of these jobs cannot be saved, no jobs should be saved. We say: let us invest in our people and assess the economic damage afterwards. At the moment, when the picture is not clear and the facts are still emerging, and when the extent of the damage is still unknown and the economy is still in a critical condition, we cannot afford to wind the scheme down in October.

[Jim Shannon]

With businesses slowly bringing staff off furlough, does the hon. Lady agree that extending the scheme will allow that slow rollback to continue, rather than having owners make the decision to let go of staff who could be brought back in a month’s time? We are talking about 700,000 people. Another month, or another few, could make all the difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He is absolutely correct. For the sake of a little extra support until our economy is in better condition, while we are still in the midst of the pandemic—it has not gone away—we need to save as many jobs as possible and support businesses in their quest to hold on to staff, rather than losing jobs that might never return.

In addition, the CBI has warned of a cliff edge and urged replacement support for jobs if furlough support ends next month. The UK manufacturing sector has warned of a “jobs bloodbath”. So much of this could be avoided. The goal of the job retention scheme, as the Chancellor told us, was to save jobs and build a bridge through the pandemic, but if furlough support is withdrawn next month, his bridge will self-evidently have not reached the other side. The investment to support and save jobs was laudable, but the task is not finished and the UK Government should not—must not—walk away from an economic disaster that is avoidable. They must not allow events simply to take their course.

Today, we on the SNP Benches urge the Government to go further and do more to save potentially millions of jobs. I echo the calls made last night in the Scottish Parliament and urge an extension to the job retention scheme. Despite the leader of the Labour party in Scotland having said that it makes no sense for the UK Government to pull away support now in one fell swoop, bewilderingly—almost inexplicably—Labour MSPs last night voted with the Tories in the Scottish Parliament against a motion urging the continuation of that support. That is an act of betrayal and a dereliction of duty towards those in Scotland who are currently, and desperately, worried about their jobs and their families.

Voters in Scotland will not easily forgive or readily forget this act of political posturing from a so-called party of workers—a party that was happy to bail out the banks but voted against support for viable jobs in Scotland for the longer term. It is utterly bewildering, and if any Labour Member wants to intervene and explain why the Labour party in Scotland has done that, I will we more than happy to hear it, but I see that nobody is willing to do so.

There are no mixed messages or equivocation from the SNP Benches. We urge the UK Government to do the right thing: to look at the kind of forward planning and support done in countries such as Germany, and to protect our economy and jobs through these difficult times. If these calls go unheeded, we in Scotland will simply be further persuaded that we need those powers for ourselves to make our own decisions.

There is a tsunami of job losses heading our way. It is not inevitable. We can stem the tide. We urge the Government to use every tool at their disposal to do so, to extend support for jobs and to ensure that those who have been unjustly excluded are given the support they need during these difficult times.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are behind where we thought we would be, so therefore we are introducing a four-minute limit from the very beginning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I will not detain the House any longer, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that there is another important debate on the horizon. I just thank everyone who has participated, and I am deeply disappointed that the Minister has not listened to the calls and continues to tell us how lucky we are with the support that we already have. That is cold comfort to those who are worried about their homes, their jobs and their future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and calls on the Government to examine, improve and extend that scheme’s operation and application to ensure that people who started work after the furlough scheme started are included and that this support continues until the UK’s economy is more robust, so that the goal of retaining as many jobs as possible is secured.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Like last week, I will not suspend the House; I will just pause while the Dispatch Boxes are sanitised and the main players take their positions, please, as others leave the Chamber. Remember “hands, face and space” and please leave socially distanced.

To let those who are taking part in the next debate know, the wind-ups will begin at 4.30 pm. Those participating in the wind-ups will have half an hour between them; it will be eight minutes, 10 minutes and 10 minutes, and then, if time allows, Caroline Lucas, who will open the debate, will have two minutes at the very end. This debate, like the last, is well over-subscribed, and we are much later going into the debate because of previous activities, so, following Caroline Lucas’s opening speech, there will be a four-minute limit. That is likely to be reduced later by Madam Deputy Speaker.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 15th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

This Government’s comprehensive and generous package of support in response to the coronavirus has protected millions of livelihoods and supported hundreds of thousands of businesses up and down the country. Our plan for jobs announced in July will protect, create and support jobs, notably through our recently launched kickstart scheme, as we look to get the UK economy back on its feet.

[Patricia Gibson]

Scottish Government analysis has revealed that ending the transition period in 2020 could cut £3 billion from the Scottish economy over the next two years—on top of the impact of coronavirus. With the UK Internal Market Bill making the risk of a no-deal Brexit even greater, what reassurances can the Chancellor give to my constituents and the people of Scotland that there will be no real-term spending cuts that will inflict even greater damage on our economy?

[Rishi Sunak]

The Government and I remain committed to getting a deal and will continue to engage constructively with our European partners in pursuit of that aim. With regard to funding for Scotland, I can tell the hon. Lady that the Scottish Government have received £6.5 billion in advance of it being called for, so that they can provide the support required to their residents.

Protection of Jobs and Businesses

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

Our Chancellor said he would do “whatever it takes” and the support that has been provided has been unprecedented. I have always said that there is no such thing as Government money, just taxpayers’ money, and we need sustainable public finances, but this programme was the right thing to do. In my constituency and up and down the country, high streets have struggled as more people shop online and visit out-of-town retail parks. The last thing they needed were the extra challenges posed by covid-19, having to close down and facing the prospect of making staff redundant. The small business grants, about £28 million in the first instance and then an additional £1.18 million in discretionary grants, have saved many businesses. The furlough scheme, used by 13,900 people in Bassetlaw, has no doubt saved many jobs too. We are talking about people who, through no fault of their own, suddenly found themselves unable to pay their household bills, mortgages and other living expenses. The scheme gave them the means to do that. Now we need to get people back to work.

The construction scheme has been able to start up again, get staff off furlough and back into work to build the homes we need. Many people have been able to move once more, aided by the Chancellor’s stamp duty measures. As a newly adopted Retfordian, I have seen at first hand the growing recovery in the town centre. We owe a debt of gratitude to businesses and local volunteers who have helped to create the conditions where people can again use our shops, hairdressers, pubs and restaurants safely. In Bassetlaw alone, the Eat Out to Help Out scheme has been used for up to 72,000 meals. In a post on my Facebook page, the owners of the Shireoaks Inn in Worksop said, “This scheme has given my pub a massive boost and has secured the jobs for all my staff for the foreseeable future”.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I know the hon. Gentleman is short of time, so I thank him for giving way. Does he not agree that we should use every tool available to beat this virus, including extending the furlough? Does he not think that we should take the advice of the Bank of England and treat the debt accrued as war debt?

[Brendan Clarke-Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which takes us back to the point about sustainable public finances. That is the key to all of this, and furlough should fit in with that as well. At some point, we actually must get back to work.

I was setting out why the support we provided was the right thing to do. We have also managed to support some tremendous community assets, such as the North Notts Community Arena, with things such as furloughing, bounce back loans and business rates relief—that was worth £11.9 million in Bassetlaw. Although the arena was unable to secure the discretionary grant from the council, it has been saved with funding from other sources, such as the big lottery community fund. I wish to thank Severn Trent Water and Sport England for supporting this wonderful facility, and community champion and manager Nigel Turner for driving it forward.

In addition to the £9.3 million given out for those who are self-employed, we now have a great scheme, in kickstart, which will help to benefit youngsters in the area and in their quest to find work. Although we still face many challenges ahead, our plan for jobs provides the basis for a strong recovery and bright future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in today’s debate at such a crucial time for both the nation’s public health and, of course, our economy. As so many Members have said since the pandemic began, the two are very much intertwined, such that our success in keeping the virus at bay will in large part determine whether our economy bounces back or remains on life support.

Covid-19 has put a powder keg under our economy and the global economy, and the recession we are now in was of course inevitable, but it must be said that the true depth of the jobs crisis that our country now finds itself in was not inevitable. The responsibility for putting that right falls squarely at the door of No. 10.

There are 4,700 jobs at risk in my Ogmore constituency, according to Office for National Statistics and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures. It is interesting hearing Government Members talk about that as if it does not matter and we will find new jobs. Constituencies such as mine have already had 30 years of deindustrialisation because of 18 years of attacks from a Conservative Government. My constituents cannot cope with any more deindustrialisation or job losses.

I welcome the Government’s support at UK level, and I welcome the Welsh Labour Government’s support for businesses across Wales—theirs is the most generous of any of the UK Administrations’ packages for supporting business—but I echo the calls of my Front-Bench colleagues: the furlough scheme needs to be extended. The suggestion that all sectors will simply survive when something is cut in October is for the birds. That simply is not true.

In the aviation sector in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—I pay tribute to her for all the work she has done on supporting so many of the staff—workers face cuts. At the BA site alone, several hundred people face the possibility of job losses. The south Wales economy will take a £1.6 billion hit if BA continues to make cuts to sites across south Wales. The Government cannot just ignore that. It is simply not appropriate for a Government to stand by and do nothing in support of the aviation sector.

[Patricia Gibson]

What Opposition Members are asking for is an extension of temporary support. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that Government Members are characterising that as a request for permanent support? The premature withdrawal of this support means that tens of thousands of viable jobs will be lost for want of an additional temporary extension. To characterise us as asking for permanent support is shameful.

[Rob Roberts]

How long for?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

A global leading response: just look beyond this country, and we see that this Government have delivered one of the most generous and comprehensive packages in the world, which is protecting jobs in Warrington South and around the UK with business grants, loans, rate relief, deferral of taxation, protecting people’s livelihoods and supporting businesses directly.

On Saturday, when I walked down London Road in Stockton Heath, businesses—large and small—came out to talk to me and, overwhelmingly, their response was positive. “Thank you, Chancellor,” is what they said. So how have the Government supported Warrington South? Let us start with Rishi’s dishes: 103,000 meals eaten in Warrington South, supporting pubs, cafés and restaurants—and, yes, I did enjoy it. There has been the furlough scheme supporting 15,400 incomes and the self-employed scheme supporting 3,200 homes, as well as the £126 million issued in CBILS and bounce back loans to businesses based in Warrington South. Having visited Warrington jobcentre last week, I want to pay a particular tribute to the team there who have made huge efforts to get universal credit out to those who need it quickly.

This Government’s support for business and employees is not ending, but it is important that we confront the realities of where we are today. We need to encourage employers to keep their employees on, so I fully support steps such as the job retention bonus scheme—a £1,000 bonus to every business for employees who were furloughed previously—and the kickstart scheme that kicks in to create job opportunities for young people. We need to get back to work and focus on providing new opportunities for people. Where jobs have gone, let us put all our efforts into helping those displaced get back into work. That is why I strongly support this Government’s plan for jobs. To those who argue for a sector-specific approach, I have one question: how exactly does that work—how far down the supply chain do we go?



Fortunately, the UK came into this crisis in an incredibly strong position. Warrington’s economy was one of the strongest in the north-west. Thanks to careful Conservative management of the economy over the last 10 years, we came into this crisis with public finances in a good position, which enables us to react strongly. But we should be clear that it is not sustainable to borrow at current levels in the long term. It is only right that, over the medium term, we get back to strong public finances.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andy Carter]

I will not, because I want to let other Members speak.

It is right that we get back to strong public finances and falling debt. It is not just the sensible thing to do economically; morally, it is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anthony Browne]

I absolutely agree—my hon. Friend has taken the words right out of my mouth. I believe, and the Conservative party believes, in sustainable national finances. Do the Opposition parties believe in that? If they do, they have to explain how they want to get there.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Anthony Browne]

I will carry on.

We are at a time when we must look to the future, not try to preserve the past. The great Andrew Bailey, the new Governor of the Bank of England, said recently in an interview that the Chancellor is

“right to say we have to look forward now. I don’t think we should be locking the economy down in a state that it pre-existed in.”

The shape of the economy will change, as we have heard today. It will not be in the same shape in a few years as it is now. The companies and people working in the aviation sector face a very difficult time over the next few years. E-commerce, on the other hand, is thriving. We have seen airlines cutting jobs, but we have seen Amazon recruiting. Inner-city sandwich shops have been hit really hard and will be for some time as people carry on working from home. Supermarkets are thriving. Pret a Manger has cut 1,600 jobs, but Tesco has just announced that it is recruiting for 14,000 jobs.

The focus of Government should not be on “prolonging the inevitable”, as the chief economist of the Bank of England said. The focus of Government should be on helping with the transition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) said, by helping the people who are losing their jobs into the new jobs that are being created. We must ensure that short-term unemployment does not move into long-term unemployment and that when people come out of work, they have relevant skills, motivation and contacts in industry. As soon as people become long-term unemployed—after six months or one year—they lose motivation and contacts, and the likelihood that their unemployment will carry on for much longer increases. That is why the Government are right to focus on their plan for jobs, through measures such as the kick- start scheme, support for apprenticeships, increased training and advice from Jobcentre Plus. That is the right approach.

Finally, many Members have been praising the international comparisons. We heard earlier the list of countries that have already announced the ending of their furlough schemes. I like statistics, and I have been looking at the Eurostat website, which is very good but could be a bit more user-friendly. The UK’s employment figures from Q2 to Q1—the key employment figures—dropped by 0.7%. That is after a very long period, and every job lost is bad news. However, Germany’s employment figures in Q2 to Q1 this year dropped by 1.4%, twice as much as the UK. In Ireland, the employment rate dropped by 6.1%, nine times faster than in the UK. In France—there seems to be a liking for France on the Labour Benches—there was a 2.6% drop in employment from Q2 to Q1, four times the rate here. We do not have that much to learn from the French employment market ,and I really do not think we should start doing so now.

Finally—[Interruption]—I want to say that Treasury Ministers have made the right decisions at the right time and I am confident they will in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

I absolutely agree and I am proud of the Government for putting ideology aside, but there is a reason that we are the only party that the British public entrusted with our economy. Therein lies the difference, because while we talk about sustainable public finances, Labour would like to see the people of this country reliant on the state forever with no end date, trying to sneak in socialism through the back door. Meanwhile, this Government are trying to work really hard to protect, support and create new jobs. If the Labour party wants to support businesses and protect jobs, they should support this Government and this Chancellor. This is the Chancellor who introduced the job retention bonus scheme so employers could bring back people from furlough. He introduced the £2 billion kickstarter scheme to get young people into six months of paid employment, with £2,000 for employers for each new apprentice under 25 and £1,500 for those over 25. He doubled the number of work coaches and invested £150 million in the flexible support fund to remove barriers to work.

Our furlough scheme was unprecedented. It went further than any country in the world and it was the right thing to do.

[Patricia Gibson]

We have heard much today on the Opposition side of the House about how generous the Chancellor has been with his support, but does the hon. Member not understand that when tens of thousands of jobs are being lost—jobs that would otherwise be viable with a bit of additional support—all this generosity is cold comfort when someone loses their job and potentially their home?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. If we look at the quantum of the package, it has helped to protect the economy at its most difficult time, and I will come on to that.

As a Conservative, I never thought that we would be in a position where we would pay up to 80% of anybody’s salary—80%—yet the Chancellor stepped up and did what needed to be done, not once but twice. Since then, 9.6 million people have been furloughed and £30.9 billion has been given to over 1.2 million businesses. It was rightly lauded as extraordinary, because extraordinary times need extraordinary measures.

But that was not the only measure. There was the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, the bounce back loan scheme, the rates relief, the business grants, the self-employed income support scheme, the mortgage holidays, the protection from evictions, rental holidays, tax deferrals, VAT cuts for hospitality and larger grants for the hospitality sector. These are just the ones that I can get in in a few breaths, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am going to take an intervention—don’t you worry—but I want to conclude this important point about the completely unacceptable behaviour towards our neighbours, friends and family members trying to cross the border between Scotland and England, coming into my constituency to work, to see family members and to visit friends. Nationalist protesters with “Yes” banners were shouting abuse at them. That is totally unacceptable.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

rose—

[John Lamont]

I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member that she will condemn that type of behaviour.

[Patricia Gibson]

I would like to say to the hon. Member, who has made a number of allegations, that the SNP, as he knows, does not have any truck with racism in any of its forms. He seems to suggest that the SNP is an anti-English party; if it makes a country racist to seek self-government, then the other 190 members of the United Nations are all racist countries. The First Minister’s granny is English, so what possible motivation could the hon. Gentleman have for these hysterical comments? If he is condemning any analysis that suggests that borders may perhaps be temporarily closed to control this virus, perhaps he would like to comment on the practice that has been adopted by Australia, which is doing the same thing between states.

[John Lamont]

The fact that the hon. Lady refused to condemn that behaviour on the border speaks for itself. Similarly, the delay from the First Minister of Scotland to condemn that behaviour also caused great concern, not just in my constituency but across Scotland. That is not the Scotland I represent, and it is not what we are about. That behaviour on the border is unacceptable, and we should condemn it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

I am very glad, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my other role, I tend to ignore the heckling I get from the sidelines and focus only on the referee. I am glad to get that guidance from you.

[Patricia Gibson]

I was listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about broad shoulders. There is no doubt there has been some level of financial co-operation between the rest of the UK and the Treasury. However, if the shoulders are so broad, why has Scotland, with 8.3% of the UK’s population, received just over 4% of all UK borrowing, and why, indeed, when the Prime Minister announced his £30 billion the other week, was only 0.1% allocated to Scotland?

[Douglas Ross]

The SNP and the hon. Lady talk about “some”, but that is £13 billion—£13 billion going in a matter of months from the UK Government directly to her constituency and my constituency and protecting jobs. Just because the Scottish Government cannot rubber-stamp that money and say that they delivered it to the people of Scotland, that does not devalue what the UK Government are investing directly into Scotland.

I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion by saying—

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

As we emerge from a health crisis, we are grappling with an economic crisis that could scarcely be more serious. To leave the EU in December with no extension to the Brexit transition period, something which the EU has offered, is complete madness. This oven-baked Brexit touted by the Prime Minister truly is half-baked. Those on the Conservative Benches have told us that we need to stick to this timetable to create certainty. The only thing that is certain is that we are heading for a no-deal Brexit, and that does not provide certainty for business or our constituents at all.

As for this myth about the broad shoulders that Scottish taxpayers have been subjected to out of the goodness of this Government’s heart, in Scotland we have actually received merely just over 4% of the entire borrowing of the UK. Given that we have 8.3% of the UK’s population, I would suggest that Scotland is being sold short, and that is before I even talk about the £30 billion that was announced last week, of which Scotland received 0.1%—far less than the 8.3% our population suggests we should have got. While we on the SNP Benches welcome the furlough scheme, it has to be said that there are more holes in it than a spaghetti strainer.

Unless the UK Government, wedded as they are to Brexit ideology, extend the transition period for leaving the EU, productivity in Scotland and indeed across the UK is seriously threatened. Unemployment in Scotland could conceivably reach 10%. If the Government head off this Brexit cliff, to which 63% of Scots are opposed, they will rob Scotland of jobs, opportunities and prosperity, and it is something the people of Scotland have rejected over and over again.

This so-called oven-ready Brexit continues to be, and always has been, a con. The much-vaunted easy trade deals we were promised are of course nowhere in sight. These fears are not just expressed by the SNP. The chorus of concern from the business world is deafening. And still the Government close their ears. Only days ago, Angela Merkel talked about the EU preparing for a no-deal Brexit, but rather than listen to these concerns, raised across the devolved nations, the Prime Minister has chosen to treat the leaders of the nations of the UK like disobedient children who will not take their medicine and sit quietly. While he drives the UK off the Brexit cliff—we remember the words about this being a Union of equals—we know that at the same time he is doing his best to dismantle the entire devolution settlement.

We know that the Tories have always been hostile to devolution, so much so that in 2016 the Tory party in Scotland was reduced to advertising in newspapers to find candidates—to find paid guns for hire; they could not find enough true believers in their cause. You can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, the quality of the candidates who applied and were eventually elected as a result. The Tory contempt for devolution is shown with the increasing attacks we have seen on the Parliament that belongs to the people of Scotland.

[Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Patricia Gibson]

I will not give way; there is a shortage of time.

Clearly, the Government’s philosophy is: if they cannot win elections in the constituent parts of the UK, they simply seek to dismantle the institutions that they cannot control. If this Tory Government actually believe they can prevent Scotland from having the opportunity to choose her own future in this or any landscape, they are sadly deluded. They cannot stem the tide of independence, which they themselves have helped to strengthen and give rise to. We stood on a manifesto of Scotland deciding her own future—much as that may be uncomfortable for some Tories on the opposite Benches—and the Tories stood on a manifesto in Scotland of getting Brexit done. The result of that election tells us what the people of Scotland feel.

Democracy did not end in Scotland in 2014 and the reality is that the UK Government are now frightened of the inevitable referendum that is to come, because they know that support is growing as they ride roughshod over Scotland’s democratic wishes.

Coronavirus: Job-Support Schemes

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Government’s action to save jobs through the job retention scheme was welcome, but there is a growing chorus across this House that too many have fallen through the cracks—the newly employed, the contract workers, the freelancers. This is deeply unfair because these people have been passed over, they have been excluded and they have been abandoned. Of course, whatever system we put in place, this was always going to happen. That is why there should have been a universal system of support for all workers affected. That way, truly no one would have been left behind.

However, there is still time for the Chancellor to put these support mechanisms in place, and we urge him to do so. For example, we urge him to put in place an emergency basic payment to all those who have been left behind. If he does not think that is appropriate or suitable, let us hear his way of dealing with this, because doing nothing is no longer an option. The whole point of the job retention scheme was to save jobs, but if this furlough support is withdrawn too early, on 1 August, and rolled back, it will fail in that goal. The task to save jobs must be completed: it must be allowed to do its job and save tens of thousands of jobs for our constituents.

Of course, the other thing we can do is to convert the loans that businesses have taken out into grants. I petitioned the Chancellor on this very issue in early April, and I am still to receive an answer. The driving force in everything that is done must be about saving jobs and saving our economy. The Bank of England has said that the debt incurred through this crisis must be treated as war debt, and that sounds eminently sensible to me, because in a way this is a war. It has been a war on our health and it has been a war on our economy.

What we need is for the Government to throw every available tool at their disposal at defeating this enemy. We need targeted support for the aviation, tourism and aerospace sector. We need targeted support for our islands, which face a real threat of depopulation. The islands are in a unique position: 300,000 people in the UK live on an island, and they are hit with the double whammy—not just the crippling of our tourism industry, but, as easing takes place, social distancing on the ferries to access islands will create further difficulties for them.

We know that UK Government borrowing will reach £340 billion this year, and quantitative easing will reach £745 billion. Scotland has received a total of £10 billion, but where is the rest of Scotland’s share? What Scotland needs is more effective tools at its disposal to take charge of the situation for ourselves. We need greater powers to deal with this economic tsunami, because that is what it is. It is an economic tsunami, and it is threatening to engulf us, so we need more action, more support for our constituents and more work to save more jobs.

Bank Branch Closures

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I echo the thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for securing this important debate. I feel as if I have spent quite a lot of time in the five years since I was elected bemoaning the stampeding of banks out of our communities without so much as a backward glance.

My constituency has several towns where there is no bank at all, and other Members have talked of similar issues. Ardrossan, Stevenston, Kilwinning—a town of 21,000 people—West Kilbride, Dalry and Beith are all without a bank, and Kilbirnie’s last bank has reduced its opening hours. That is the only bank left in the entire Garnock valley, which is three distinct towns with a collective population of more than 19,000 people. Losing the last bank in our towns is a severe blow to our communities. It undermines their commercial stability and has a significant social impact, which we have heard much about today.

My constituency, like that of every Member who has spoken, has been hit particularly hard, and I share all the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson). In Scotland, according to research, we have lost more than one third of our bank branches since 2015. The consumer organisation Which? found that banks shut 396 Scottish branches between January 2015 and August 2019, reducing their number by 38%—an alarming rate of closure, by any measure. My hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian, for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have all said similar things.

As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire, it is clear that any consultations are simply window dressing. They are tick-box exercises so that the banks can reassure themselves and the Minister—“Oh yes, Minister, we have undertaken consultation”—when we know that is not true in reality. I remember the same thing happening in 2007 and 2008, when there were mass post office closures in my constituency. That was long before I was elected to this place, and perhaps innocently—perhaps even naively—I, along with other Scottish National party activists, set up street stalls. We went door to door with petitions. We did everything we could to get the post office to reverse those closures, but of course nothing changed, because the consultations were not at all meaningful. We have memories of these consultations from other times, and I say to the Minister that this has to stop.

The Treasury Committee concluded that

“there are still large sections of society who rely on bank branches to carry out their banking needs. A bank branch network, or at the least, a face-to-face banking solution, is still a vital component of the financial services sector, and must be preserved.”

I know that the Minister probably will not agree—I have said this to him before, during one of the countless debates on this topic I have participated in—but I genuinely believe that because there was no UK Government intervention when RBS announced its radical, eye-watering programme of closures, although we as taxpayers owned a significant stake in RBS, the fact that nothing was done emboldened the other banks that have no element of public ownership. If a publicly owned bank can do it, why can a private bank not do the same without any kickback or repercussions from those in the corridors of power?

If the Government are as willing as they have demonstrated to accept closures of bank branches—banks that they owned, in the case of RBS—that is extremely disappointing. Throughout RBS’s entire closure programme, I listened very hard, but I could not hear anybody in Government condemning those closures. All I heard was a distancing from any sense of responsibility, which is really disappointing for our constituents. It seems that other banks felt they could employ the same tactics and close down wherever they felt it was no longer convenient to have a branch, without any consequences or official condemnation from Government. As a result, the people who pay the price are those in our communities who are suffering for want of a bank, and will continue to suffer. We have heard a lot about that today.

Of course, we have these mobile banks, but they really do not answer the question of what we do without a bank. They are not disability compliant, their reliability is questionable at best, and they simply do not fit the bill or take the place of a bank. We also know that the gaps left by banks cannot be properly filled by post offices. That is no reflection on post offices, which work hard to provide a good service to our communities, but they are not banks and they cannot fill the gap. As the Minister will know, the Treasury Committee concluded that post offices

“should not be seen as a replacement for a branch network, but a complementary proposition”.

Other Members have talked about the fact that post offices simply cannot fill that gap.

Along with branch closures we are witnessing the demise of free cash machines, as we have heard. About 10 free-to-use ATMs a week have been shut down in the past year. As far as I can make out—although I hope the Minister will contradict me—the Treasury seems to have been deaf to all pleas for Government intervention to protect free cash. I hope that the Minister is able to offer some comfort today.

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

It was in the Budget.

[Patricia Gibson]

I look forward to hearing from the Minister, who is speaking from a sedentary position.

The ATM Industry Association has warned that one fifth of Scotland’s free ATMs will start to charge consumers in the next year. That can be seen only as a cynical move to force us to become a cashless society. Picking up what has been touched on by my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, for East Renfrewshire, and for Midlothian, and the hon. Member for Strangford, bank closures have, as we now know—the game is up—been a tool to force people to bank online. As banks have quietly cut the fees that they are willing to pay machine operators to provide bank customers with access to cash, they are forcing us to go cashless and online. Banks are attempting to put pressure on customers who do not act in a way that they—the banks—find convenient. What happened to the customer being king?

Going cashless and banking online may, as we have heard, be the preferred option for some—and good luck to them—but some of us do not want to go down that route, and increasingly aggressive efforts are being made for it to happen, at breakneck speed. I and those of my constituents who do not favour those options will not be forced to bank online. We will not be bullied into doing so or into going cashless. It is a rum do when the service provider is bullying the customer—because that is how it feels. In any case, even among customers who may be interested in banking online there are some who simply are not able to, for a variety of reasons that the Minister will understand, and of which the hon. Member for Strangford reminded us.

I have corresponded with the Treasury about online banking in the past, and it accepted that broadband access is not yet good enough for everyone to rely on digital banking. The Government and the access to banking standard must ensure that banks have a social responsibility to provide banking facilities to all our towns. Such services could be provided relatively easily through the wide rolling-out of banking hubs. Indeed, I met the Minister in his constituency to discuss that very issue last year. I am hoping—I am quite excited about it—that he will be able to update me on progress with that. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong but I cannot see any discernible obstacle to the option except for perhaps a lack of political will and, indeed, the arrogance and intransigence of the banking industry.

Our communities and constituents deserve better than they have had up to this point. Banks have to face up to their social responsibilities, get their heads together and create banking hubs in our towns, across the board. There is no real impediment to that, and I urge the Minister to use his good offices to bang some banking heads together and ensure that customers’ voices are heard. The Government have a role to play when the last bank in town is closed. They have said repeatedly that those are commercial decisions, but it is not just a commercial matter. It is about social responsibility and financial inclusion. I urge the Minister to reflect further on the strong feelings and concerns that have been expressed today. Will he finally bring forward legislative proposals to ensure that banks live up to their responsibilities to our communities?