RBS Closures (Argyll and Bute)

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a point that I will come to with some vigour later. The decision of the Royal Bank of Scotland to turn its back on so many of our communities, particularly those where it is the last bank in town, despite an earlier promise not to do such a thing, is a scandalous abdication of its social responsibility to rural Scotland, and to those people who were forced to keep it afloat when it threatened to sink without trace during the financial crisis a decade ago.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. In my constituency, we are losing a branch in Kilwinning, Kilbirnie and Saltcoats. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal Bank of Scotland appears to have totally misjudged the public mood, and does not understand the deep sense of anger about the fact that while it is publicly owned, there is no sense of social responsibility or financial inclusion in these decisions?

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Royal Bank of Scotland was not aware before of the anger that this has caused across Scotland, it is very aware now.

It has been well documented that in my Argyll and Bute constituency, RBS plans to close three branches, in Campbeltown, Rothesay and Inveraray. I cannot begin to describe the sense of anger and the growing hostility in those towns, and right across my constituency, at the decision to close those local branches. My constituents are well aware of the hardship that the closures will cause across our communities. It is that anger and burning sense of injustice that has led so many of them to sign my parliamentary petition, which I launched just before Christmas. In Inveraray, Rothesay and Campbeltown, there is not one shop that has refused to take a petition to gather local signatures. I have the petitions here, and will be lodging them on the Floor of the House in the very near future. That is testament to the anger felt across Argyll and Bute at this callous closure plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

I absolutely agree, and I find it utterly bewildering that the work was not done—or, if the work was done, that the Royal Bank of Scotland did not reach that very obvious conclusion.

Let me be clear: I have no doubt that the number of people accessing their local branch is falling, but I question the way in which RBS has collated the numbers. It is twisting and manipulating them to make them justify a predetermined case for branch closures. The Royal Bank of Scotland appears to have a pretty unique way of calculating the number of customers accessing its branches. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said in the main Chamber just before Christmas that

“RBS is trying to create a picture of these branches as a relic of the past”—[Official Report, 18 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 883.]

RBS is saying that “demand for branch banking” has declined to such an extent that customers are abandoning branches in their droves.

[Patricia Gibson]

rose—

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

rose—

[Brendan O'Hara]

I will make some progress before I give way again.

Using RBS’s own statistics, however, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber showed how misleading those numbers are. He explained that the justification given by the Royal Bank of Scotland for closing a branch in his constituency, in the town of Beauly, was that only 27 people a week used it, yet the Beauly branch has almost 3,500 customers and processed 29,000 transactions last year; 29,000 transactions from just 27 customers does not seem right to me. As I said, I cannot help think that the figures have been calculated in such a way as to simply justify a pre-planned closure.

If the Royal Bank of Scotland wants a meaningful, open and honest discussion about closing local branches, then let us have one, but let it be predicated on facts, not the spin and obfuscation that we have witnessed up until now.

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. He talks about statistics, the number of customers using banks, and those figures being used as a lever to close branches in order to cut costs, but one way of cutting costs would have been not to award £16 million in bonuses last year.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I could not put it better myself, so I will not try to. Let me be clear: there is more to these ruthless closures than the effect on individuals and businesses. As many know, Argyll and Bute is a beautiful but remote part of the country. With that remoteness come many demographic and economic challenges, but we are determined to overcome those obstacles. Argyll and Bute Council, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Argyll and Bute Economic Forum, Scottish Rural Action and I, along with many others, have been busy telling folk that Argyll and Bute is open for business. Together we have been actively promoting Argyll and Bute as a great place to live, work, raise a family, invest and open a business, but the Royal Bank of Scotland has kicked us in the teeth.

As Cleland Sneddon, the chief executive of Argyll and Bute Council, said:

“I believe RBS has a responsibility to those rural communities that have banked with them for generations and this decision appears to have scant regard to their particular needs…Argyll and Bute Council has called on RBS to urgently review this decision”.

Nicholas Ferguson, chair of the Argyll and Bute Economic Forum, was equally scathing:

“For the last few years, major efforts have gone into changing the depopulation trend in Argyll and Bute. To do this, we needed to create jobs and major progress has been made…But Argyll is a place of many small firms.

These rely heavily on local banking services and the plans by RBS to close their offices in three of our most important towns would be a major setback…As the UK government is the principal owner of RBS, I would strongly request that this decision be reversed.”

Those two are not alone. Emma Cooper of Scottish Rural Action, who is a constituent living on the Isle of Bute, said:

“It is our opinion that these branch closures demonstrate a lack of care and compassion from RBS about rural communities and vulnerable people, who will be disproportionately impacted by the decision, and the process by which these decisions were made was unethical.”

As the Minister can tell, Argyll and Bute is demanding action on the issue. He does not need me to remind him that there is a precedent: George Osborne, when he got involved as Stephen Hester was leaving RBS, told the BBC’s “Today” programme that

“as the person who represents the taxpayer interest...of course my consent and approval was sought”.

So there is precedent, and it is an undeniable fact that the Government have the power to intervene. It is only a matter of whether they choose to exercise that power and to get involved.

Banks and Communities

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I begin by thanking the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) for securing this debate. In the clamour to get this debate, he was the first one out of the trap.

I am very pleased to take part in this debate, but I wish it was not necessary. The latest round of closures has been characterised, as we have heard today in so many words, by a lack of consultation and an arrogant disregard for the majority shareholders involved: the taxpayer and the consumer. I find myself in the most unusual position—I hope it happens many times in the future—of agreeing with the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). He is absolutely correct to say that these closures will have a disproportionate impact on some of the most vulnerable members of our communities.

This debate is very timely. In Scotland another 62 branch closures have been announced. Of course, RBS vowed in the distant past not to close the last bank in town, but it seems that the PR experts who came up with that for RBS have now been completely disregarded, because the bank is rather ashamed of having made that vow. There has been no consultation, and as we heard from the hon. Member for East Lothian, there has been a tick-box mentality as these banks shut up shop and turn their backs on our towns without a backward glance.

Thirteen communities in Scotland will be left without a bank at all following the recently announced closures. It is incumbent on me as the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran to point out that in my constituency, the latest round of closures brings the number of towns without a bank up to seven. The towns of Dalry, Stevenston, West Kilbride, Ardrossan and Beith no longer have a bank, and now we can add Kilbirnie and Kilwinning to that list. I honestly do not think that any constituency in the UK has been hit so hard or so cruelly. Indeed, the banks are stampeding out of Ayrshire at an alarming and staggering rate, and RBS is leading the way.

I cannot overstate the sense of anger and betrayal felt by the communities affected right across the United Kingdom, as we have heard today. This is a bank that was bailed out by the taxpayer to secure its survival. Let us not forget that its survival was under threat because of its own mismanagement and incompetence. We, the taxpayers, stepped up to save this bank, and we still own 73% of it. What we have heard today about these closures is a very bitter pill to swallow indeed.

The UK Government retain all legislative and regulatory powers in terms of financial services, so they do indeed have the authority to call a halt to this devastating round of closures. If they choose to do that, it means that banks, stakeholders and the UK and Scottish Governments can consider how best to take account of the obligation to banking customers and our communities. Whatever the banks may say, they have an obligation to our communities—they have a service obligation, a financial obligation and, I would argue, a moral obligation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), I will present a petition to Parliament on this issue, to allow my constituents’ voices to be heard.

Let us be clear about what these bank closures mean. They mean that the affected communities no longer have access to day-to-day essential banking services. It means that my constituents in Kilbirnie must undertake a round trip of 18.8 miles to access their new so-called local bank, many of them relying on public transport to do so. It means RBS customers in Saltcoats are being directed to the next RBS, which is a round trip of 12.8 miles, and Kilwinning customers are being asked to undertake a round trip of 6.8 miles to visit their new local branch.

All of that is before we even get to the impact on local businesses, which increasingly lack access to night safes. If local businesses cannot bank their takings at the end of the business day, they must incur an extra insurance charge for keeping the cash overnight, with all the security implications of that. These small businesses are the backbone and lifeblood of our communities and our economy. Without a local high street bank, their very futures become more precarious as well.

Make no mistake: to leave a town with no bank is financial and social exclusion. I am really fed up of hearing that people now bank online and that branches are no longer needed. I accept, as everyone today has, that some people are changing the way they bank, and good luck to them. However, many people do not bank online, for a variety of reasons. We heard from the hon. Member for East Lothian that digital exclusion is a significant factor, but it is not the only factor. I do not bank online. I choose not to bank online, and I will not be bullied into banking online by any bank. We are being bullied and forced to bank online because we are not behaving in the way the banks would like us to.

Mobile banks, which RBS constantly brings up to placate the towns that it is abandoning, do not assuage customer concerns, because they are unreliable and not disability compliant. The Prime Minister said in the Chamber that branch closures were operational matters for the banks, but that is really not good enough as we face what can only be called a high street banking crisis. Banks have shown and are showing increasingly that they have no sense of service to our communities. It is time for the UK Government to establish and enforce a guaranteed minimum level of service provision for essential banking services that recognises the importance of continued access to banking for our local communities. I have put it to several banks, as they seek to abandon our towns, that an option they might want to look at is reducing their opening hours. The fact is that they want to shed the asset. They want to close up shop without a backward glance. They are not interested in what our towns need.

As for the UK Government arguing that these are operational decisions, there is a precedent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute set out, for a publicly owned bank seeking Government consent as its majority shareholder. The previous Chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that point during his time as Chancellor. His consent was sought by RBS over the departure of the previous CEO, Stephen Hester. That means the UK Government right now could reject any new RBS branch closures in locations where no appropriate face-to-face alternatives are in place. They should require RBS to ensure that practical and sustainable alternative banking services are put in place before any closures are signed off. Otherwise, the road we are going down will lead to the end of high street banking.

The UK Government have both the legislative and regulatory power and responsibility for banking and financial services. Given that banks are riding roughshod over communities with no sense of service or their responsibility for leaving customers high and dry, it is now time for a guaranteed minimum level of service provision for essential banking services to be put in place. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the very real anger and sense of betrayal that these closures have given rise to, and to use all the means at his disposal to have these decisions revisited. Otherwise, every high street bank we still have will not remain for much longer.

Roadchef Employees Benefit Trust

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I thank the hon. Members from across the House who have so far agreed to stay back to listen and perhaps contribute to the debate. What I am looking to discuss this evening can be boiled down to basic fairness and people getting access to what is rightfully theirs. I think it is important to set out some context to where we are today, before I come to the main points that I hope the Minister might be able to help with.

In 1986, the Roadchef employees benefit trust was established to give employees at Roadchef motorway services, such as those at Harthill in my constituency, Watford Gap, Hamilton or dozens of other locations across these isles, access to a John-Lewis-style employee-ownership scheme, whereby they would benefit from increasing share entitlements based on length of service. It was established honourably by the then chief executive Patrick Gee in consultation with and with the support of the GMB union. Sadly and tragically, Patrick Gee died aged 43 before the scheme could be fully realised and Tim Ingram Hill took over. He then transferred the shares that Mr Gee was making available to employees into a second employee benefit scheme, of which he was the only beneficiary.

When Roadchef was subsequently sold to the Japanese company Nikko about a decade later, Mr Ingram Hill made approaching £30 million on the shares that should have been made available to Roadchef employees. In 2000, he made a tax payment on his ill-gotten share windfall to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to the tune of approximately £10 million, something which has only to come to light further down the line. On discovering the unjust enrichment, the trust then took Mr Ingram Hill to the High Court, and Justice Proudman found that he had acted in breach of trust and, crucially, that the shares were never his in the first place—they were the employees’ shares. The purchase of the shares in the sale of the company was therefore void and—this is important—the £10 million paid to HMRC also belonged to the beneficiaries, not Mr Ingram Hill.

Subsequent to the High Court ruling, Mr Ingram Hill settled with the trust, thus ending our interest in him for the purposes of this debate, but the trust then notified HMRC of the fact that the settlement had occurred and that it now intended to pay out to its beneficiaries, who total some 4,000 current and former Roadchef employees. The trust also wished to clarify that there would be no tax implications from the payments being made, thinking that that would just be a formality, but the response from HMRC was rather surprising. HMRC said that it would be happy to waive any tax implications for the beneficiaries as long as the trust did not pursue it for the £10 million paid in tax by Mr Ingram Hill. That was the first time that the trust had been made aware of such a tax payment. In accordance with any trustees acting on behalf of beneficiaries, the trust has challenged HMRC on the £10 million payment, which should be repaid to the trust with interest. That brings us up to date on this complex and unique case.

I am grateful to the chairman of the trust, Christopher Winston Smith, and to Huw Edwards for their insight ahead of this debate, and to the current CEO of Roadchef, Simon Turl, who I spoke to last night. Roadchef wants the issue settled for its current and former employees and has been working constructively with HMRC to that end. The trust has also worked with a number of hon. Members from across the House to raise the matter with HMRC, including my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

My constituents certainly want this issue settled. Twenty constituents, most of whom live around the service station at Harthill, have contacted me about the matter, but I am sure that more are waiting for their payment. They include Mrs Margaret Gibson, who lists some of the things that she has struggled to do in recent years that this money would have helped with, including borrowing money for home improvements, helping her son to pay for his wedding, or helping her and her husband to get by during periods of unemployment. She considers it a ridiculous amount of time to wait for what is rightfully hers, and I completely agree.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that what adds insult to injury here is that, as well as being deprived of the payments, many of the people concerned are also working on quite low pay?

[Neil Gray]

Absolutely. I believe that the main thrust behind Mr Gee’s setting up of the trust in the first place was to ensure that low-paid staff were able to benefit from the company doing well. That has sadly not happened yet, and many low-paid workers have suffered as a result. Many of my constituents—I will list some shortly—have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the payments not being made, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Linda McLeod and Margaret Main pointed to the time it has taken for their money to be returned, but they also highlighted the number of former colleagues who have sadly passed away and will not get the benefit their hard work merited. Caroline Todd contacted me on behalf of her mother, Mrs Quigley from Harthill. She desperately hopes this gets resolved soon so that her mum, who is getting older, is able to enjoy her own money. Margaret Forsyth just wants HMRC to settle matters so that she can have some security, a sentiment echoed by Jane Paxton and Elizabeth Campbell.

Joyce Simm’s husband has been receiving treatment for small-cell carcinoma for three years, and she has been out of work while she cares for him. They have had to survive on pensions and savings, which are fast disappearing. They have now been hit with the sad news that he has a carcinoid tumour and will be undergoing surgery on 21 December. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing the family well, but clearly any pay-out now would be particularly beneficial.

Another constituent of mine visited my surgery. He is seriously ill and in a difficult financial situation, and the money he is entitled to get back would simply be life changing and would help him immensely. He is desperate to see HMRC settle as soon as possible. I know many other hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will have constituents who are affected and, sadly, will be able to share similar stories. Indeed, I understand Mr Speaker has constituents who are affected by this issue.

It is worth mentioning someone else who has been affected by this case. The former company secretary at Roadchef, Tim Warwick, blew the whistle on what the then chief executive was doing before there was any kind of whistleblower protection. Exposing this affair effectively ended Mr Warwick’s career, and we should all thank and pay tribute to him for his efforts.

What can the Minister do to help my constituents and their 4,000 colleagues across these isles who are waiting for their money? I understand that HMRC is a non-ministerial department of Government and that the Minister is therefore somewhat restricted in what he can do, but I hope he can join me and colleagues on both sides of the House in calling on HMRC to settle this case with the trustees and to return the £10 million, plus interest, to the rightful owners—the trustees and beneficiaries.

Public Sector Pay

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Westminster Hall

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

Had the Chancellor’s Budget a couple of weeks ago been different, we might not all be sitting here this evening; we might not even need to have this debate. Many public sector workers have seen their pay fall by up to £5,000 over the past seven years, and in the same period consumer price inflation has risen by 15%. That is not sustainable in anybody’s book. The Budget can only be seen as a missed opportunity to redress the balance.

Most people, not just in this Chamber but across the UK, understand that the 1% pay cap is not only unsustainable but deeply unjust. Surely the Minister will not attempt to justify it. How on earth could he? The UK Government’s current position, as I understand it, seems to be to cherry-pick certain public sector workers and set them against the others. That certainly looks like their plan, but how will setting workers against each other improve matters?

In Scotland, the Scottish Government are unequivocal in saying that the pay cap must go. It cannot be justified or sustained any longer. The rising inflation alongside too many years of pay restraint means that our public sector workers feel too hard pressed, despite delivering essential services, which we all use, to our communities daily.

I must declare an interest: until I was elected in 2015, I served in the public sector, as I am sure many hon. Members did. I was an English teacher for more than 20 years, and I too endured the pay cap and saw my wages fall in real terms, so I know what it is like. Scotland’s Budget in 2018-19 will be about £3.1 billion lower in real terms than the 2007-08 Budget due to the cuts by successive UK Governments.

The proper way to fund the lifting of the pay cap is for the UK Government to commit new money, which will bring a consequential to Scotland. That is the only realistic way to do it, as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) pointed out. Like the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), I am fed up that, while the Government mouth concerns about their so-called appreciation for public sector workers, they are quite willing to justify holding down their wages and seeing their living standards fall.

Unlike the UK Chancellor’s Budget, the Scottish Government’s Budget, which will be announced next week, will focus on trying to strike a balance between affordability and giving staff a fairer deal. The full details will be published next week. The Scottish Government face budgetary constraints, but let us do what the hon. Member for Ogmore said and put the ultimate fiscal responsibility for the situation we are all in where it belongs: squarely on the Chancellor’s shoulders.

I urge the Minister to be mindful of the real and understandable anger of the public sector workers who provide essential services. This petition reflects their anger about the fact that the UK is on course for the longest fall in living standards since records began, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which described its forecasts of slumping productivity and wage stagnation as “pretty grim reading”. Household disposable incomes are set to fall until 2020.

The Chancellor’s Budget did not address any of those issues. As has been pointed out, it was a profound and cruel missed opportunity to show public services across the UK that they are valued and that they matter. Warm words do not pay the rent or put food on the table. The UK Government’s ideologically driven austerity is affecting every corner of the UK and every devolved Administration’s Budget.

The claim that there is no new money available to fund increases in public sector pay, which has been held down for too long—workers’ take-home pay is being hurt—has caused great anger. There are billions of pounds on the table for Brexit and the Democratic Unionist party, and there is apparently a blank cheque for Trident. There is money, but public sector workers are simply not a priority. That is disgraceful. I ask the Minister to reflect on that. The Government say they value public sector workers, but how does that value manifest itself? Whatever it means, it cannot mean continuing the cruel pay cap and continuing to alienate our hard-pressed public sector workers. I hope the Minister will go back to the Cabinet and his ministerial colleagues and convey the anger that public sector workers justifiably feel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for presenting the petition in this debate, and I declare that I am a member of the trade union Unison.

Before being elected to represent my constituency in Parliament, I worked for a local authority and, along with my colleagues, was subject to the pay cap. Since the election, I have been contacted by many of my constituents who work in our essential public services and are struggling to make ends meet. They provide the services that keep our society going. One of my constituents emailed me recently and said:

“I am a highly skilled professional, and yet my pay packet does not reflect this…The Westminster Government’s public sector pay policy has eroded my salary year on year and caused me considerable hardship, including having to move out of the family home for 4 years to make ends meet…Many of my colleagues have left the profession and low pay and other poor working conditions, including excessive workload, are deterring new entrants.”

It is a travesty that we are seeing poor pay and conditions result in people leaving the public sector jobs they love. Local government has huge statutory responsibilities and our local government workers are carrying out necessary, vital and admirable duties in ensuring that our communities are healthy, educated, housed, cared for in old age and living in a clean and safe environment. As the savage and ongoing cuts that local authorities have faced since 2010 have resulted in redundancies, those still working for local authorities are not only enduring unprecedented workloads but, to add insult to injury, are seeing their pay capped, which is in effect a massive pay cut for them.

As in all our public services, the fact that those workers and their families are struggling makes it clear that the Government are failing in their economic and moral arguments, and are oblivious to what makes society flourish. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) pointed out, most public sector bodies are the biggest employers in their borough, town or city, and the knock-on effect of the pay cap affects the local businesses that serve the local workforce. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North referred to in her excellent speech, in the House of Commons Chamber we hear many platitudes from Government Members, praising the work of our public sector workers, but that pat on the back does not put food on the table, keep a family sheltered or give dignity to workers.

[Patricia Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that we often hear platitudes and warm words from the Government about how valued the public sector is; a number of people have alluded to that fact. Is he, like me, deeply bewildered and alarmed at the fact that today we hear not even platitudes—nothing but silence?

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right; the silence is deafening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

Well, I would have thought a Conservative would know that the Scottish Budget follows the UK Budget. On 14 December, the Scottish Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) can shout people down and follow the lead of the Scottish Conservatives that we have seen in the last six months, but he obviously has not read the petition. We are debating a petition that says additional funding should be made available by the UK Government for this. As I said, a local authority, a health board or a devolved Administration should not be clearing up the mess of this Government, who continue to impose poor wages on public sector workers.

[Patricia Gibson]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, despair at the fact that there has been a £3.1 billion cut to Scotland’s budget since 2010? It is appalling that people representing Scotland in the Chamber today are attempting to ignore that.

[Chris Stephens]

My hon. Friend is right. The facts speak for themselves.

I am reminded of the speech I made in the Chamber less than two weeks ago on the Budget, in which I said:

“The only difference between this Chancellor and the previous one is that of style, not substance. Where George Osborne could best be described as a tin of gloss, superficially painting over the cracks in our broken economy, the current Chancellor is the tin of matt, hoping to hide the worst lumps and bumps with repeated applications of more of the same. Either way, they are both the same shade of Tory austerity blue”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 1255.]

As a former treasurer of Glasgow city Unison, I know all too well that trade unions have a welfare fund, which is an important aspect of membership and the recruiting of public sector workers. That branch’s accounts show that from 2010 to 2015, there was a year-on-year increase in spending of that welfare fund. Is that because the pay did not quite match the increases in food, housing and fuel costs? Of course it is.

Today, the average household has lost £7.74 per week due to higher prices for goods, including bread, milk and cheese. The Trussell Trust statistics tell us that in 2010, it delivered 61,400 emergency food parcels to hungry people. Today’s figure, which the Trussell Trust released last month, is 1,182,594 food parcels. All the evidence suggests that many of those going to food banks are, in actual fact, public sector workers.

Despite all the hints, the Budget failed to lift the public sector pay cap. With inflation at a five-year high of 3%, the value of public sector wages has collapsed. In 2017, the civil service people survey, referred to by the hon. Member for North Tyneside, has shown that satisfaction with pay and conditions has fallen and now stands at 30%.

The Government’s solution is to park the issue with pay review bodies. The problem with that approach is that 55% of public sector workers in the UK are not covered by a pay review body. They include jobcentre workers, who administer our social security and pensions system; those who staff our borders, working in immigration and asylum services; civilians in the Ministry of Defence, providing equipment and support to our armed services; and, of course, workers in the national health service and local government.

In November 2015, I secured an Adjournment debate to demonstrate the low pay in the Department for Work and Pensions. Over 40% of its employees were receiving tax credits. As a result of that debate, the Government had no option but to negotiate with the PCS a wage rise for staff in that Department.

Of course, there is the Treasury pay remit, which covers about 400,000 workers. This is the so-called delegated pay system—a notional arrangement whereby Departments and agencies are individual employers responsible for negotiating pay and conditions. Although the remit is “guidance” for civil service departmental employers and other bargaining units, it does set a pay cap framework.

That was not always the case. In fact, national pay bargaining was first introduced in the civil service in 1919, and that position held for more than 70 years until the then Conservative Government, over a period between 1994 and 1996, broke it up and delegated responsibility to individual departmental employers. The reality is not only that it is incredibly wasteful and time consuming to hold hundreds of sets of negotiations about an issue decided and controlled centrally, but that that has led to inequalities whereby staff at similar grades across Departments, and even across agencies within the same sponsor Department, are paid vastly different salaries.

A real danger of the Government’s current approach is that it will increase the gender pay gap, because it is clear that so far the Government have announced the ending of the pay cap for those services that are male dominated, and those Departments that are female dominated do not yet see evidence that the public sector pay cap will be lifted. That is a very dangerous route for the Government to go down.

Ayrshire Growth Deal

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

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

This evening’s debate could not be more important to the good people of Ayrshire. As everyone at home and everyone in the Chamber can see, it is also very important to the MPs from across Scotland who have turned out to show their support for the Ayrshire growth deal. The Ayrshire growth deal is of huge importance to re-energising of the economy of the whole county of Ayrshire. The whole of Ayrshire, including the part I represent, has quite breathtaking natural beauty in parts. However, no one would deny that it also has its challenges.

The Ayrshire growth deal, should it secure the necessary support from the UK Government, would represent a step-change in economic growth and the economic prospects of Ayrshire. The Scottish Government are already supportive, but UK Government support, and the value it can bring cannot and must not be underestimated. Indeed, the entire Ayrshire growth deal depends on support from the UK Government.

Targeting the costed £359.8 million of investment would support a number of exciting projects, and generate and stimulate real, lasting and inclusive economic growth. The Scottish Government are enthusiastic and I understand—correctly, I hope—that the UK Government are receptive to it as well. I am keen tonight for the Minister to articulate his Government’s support for this bold, ambitious, innovative and transformative vision for the whole of Ayrshire. The feedback from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been most encouraging and I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has also expressed his support for this initiative. I am therefore both lobbying and urging the Minister today to do all he can to ensure that on the day of the spring Budget, 8 March, the Ayrshire growth deal is firmly on the UK Government’s agenda. There is no doubt that on the Scottish National party Benches and across the whole county of Ayrshire there is a collective will to maximise the considerable and significant economic potential of this particularly picturesque part of Scotland.

We all know that in the past such growth deals have focused on cities. However, I sense that there is some interest in seeing how such an initiative would work on a diverse county such as Ayrshire, with its mix of urbanisation, towns, rural elements and two islands. Ayrshire is a diverse county with so much to offer. There is no doubt that stimulated growth would be repaid, as it would do much to re-energise, galvanise and revitalise the considerable untapped potential of the Ayrshire economy.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate for our area. She rightly says that to date the Government have focused on city deals. City deals certainly have a place and we welcome the investment they have brought to Scotland. However, in terms of connectivity and distance between cities, there is no doubt that another approach needs to be undertaken to regenerate areas like Ayrshire, which have suffered from de-industrialisation.

I was looking today at the latest unemployment figures: 1,960 in my constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, the 76th highest claimant rate by constituency; 1,745 in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock; 1,635 in Central Ayrshire; and 2,185 in North Ayrshire and Arran, the 29th highest claimant rate by constituency. It is therefore really important that a new way is found to re-industrialise our area.

[Patricia Gibson]

The figures my hon. Friend quotes paint their own picture of the challenges faced by the entire county of Ayrshire. I am sure the Minister was listening keenly and will take them on board.

For Ayrshire to truly reach its potential, it is essential to reduce inequalities across communities and give everyone a stake in Ayrshire’s growth. Therefore, inclusive growth is, and must be, an integral part of the Ayrshire growth deal business case. A successful economy must ensure that all the talents of our people are harnessed, which will help Ayrshire to be truly competitive and resilient to emerging technologies and challenges. We must work to ensure that Ayrshire folk are better connected to the economy, and have better and greater opportunities to prosper. I believe, and all MPs on the SNP Benches believe, that the Ayrshire growth deal provides a compelling route towards achieving that. We have so many resources and successes in Ayrshire to build upon, with our aerospace and space industry, life sciences and manufacturing.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

As well as the beauty that my hon. Friend has mentioned, we also have incredible potential. Even in my small part of Ayrshire, we have life sciences at one end and at the other an airport that not only was Scotland’s first passenger airport but has the potential to be the UK’s first spaceport, with its long runway, its clear weather and an air traffic control centre and aerospace cluster. We have the pieces of marble in the grass; we just need help to put them on top of each other.

[Patricia Gibson]

My hon. Friend has well articulated the importance of the spaceport to Ayrshire and the opportunities it would bring to build on that to spread and attract growth to Ayrshire.

In addition, we can enhance Ayrshire’s beautiful coast and capitalise on the considerable opportunities that Ayrshire’s harbours and ports provide. Indeed, proposed projects are well placed to feed into the delivery of national tourism strategies, such as marine tourism. This is an area in which there is great potential for growth in Ayrshire, but the infrastructure to make it possible is essential, alongside opportunities for the provision of land for the development of new housing.

I am particularly excited about the coastal regeneration of Ardrossan. Investment of about £22 million will deliver a transformation of the port as a regional transport interchange, serving south-west Scotland. Ardrossan is Scotland’s largest and busiest ferry terminal and is well placed to play a key role in delivering wider benefits to communities and businesses across Ayrshire. The prize is a port that will serve and promote a range of opportunities—cruising, leisure, marine tourism, waterfront residential—as well as improving lifeline services to the Isle of Arran, which I believe will continue to be served by the port of Ardrossan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) mentioned the exciting project for the establishment of a spaceport at Prestwick airport. Estimates from the Spaceport UK report of 2014 show that a spaceport has the potential cumulatively to realise a baseline of £320 million of additional economic activity.

The vision is also for Ayrshire to be recognised as a centre of excellence for digital skills. This can be done by developing—indeed transforming—the use of digital technology in schools, weaving technology through the teaching and learning process. Ayrshire’s Connected Classroom initiative is a recognition that digital is a key enabler of science, technology, engineering and mathematics —the so-called STEM subjects—and aims to ensure that our young people are well prepared for our increasingly digital world. Such a digitally savvy generation will support the exciting potential of Ayrshire’s space industry and aerospace innovation district.

[Alan Brown]

The digital connectivity initiative is a fantastic scheme giving every kid in Ayrshire from the age of three to 18 the highest level of digital connectivity. It is a welcome ambition and will help to close the skills and productivity gaps, as those young people move into the workforce, and the aim of a 40% higher entry level into the digital workforce is laudable. Just yesterday, I was reading an EU Commission report saying that the UK has 5,000 such skills vacancies but that this figure is predicted to rise to 161,000. So such an initiative could open up opportunities across the entire UK.

[Patricia Gibson]

Indeed, it could. The importance of upskilling our population cannot be underestimated when we are talking about inclusive economic growth.

North Ayrshire schools have the third-highest rates of positive outcomes for school leavers in Scotland. By continuing to ensure that our transitions from school are robust and continue to develop, Ayrshire is well placed to meet changing economic challenges, and this will enable our communities to become more prosperous, ambitious and vibrant. The UK’s medicine industry is one of the leading manufacturing sectors, with exports worth more than £22 billion. The medicines manufacturing innovation centre is a national innovation centre for the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries, and north Ayrshire is shortlisted to host it. Infrastructure funding secured through the Ayrshire growth deal would go a long way to seeing it constructed in Ayrshire’s i3 investment park in Irvine before too long. Ayrshire has so much to offer. All Members, including the Minister, are invited to sample some of its delights, both in the gastronomic sense and in the context of business potential.

[Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)]

I am lucky enough to have some fantastic drinks companies in my constituency, including the company that produces Hendrick’s gin, and Caledonian Bottlers and Ayr Brewing Company, as well as wonderful food suppliers such as We Hae Meat, Barwheys Dairy, Chocolati and Roundsquare Roastery, which roasts coffee beans. In fact, there are too many to mention. Does my hon. Friend agree that the growth deal would give a welcome and much-needed boost to Ayrshire, which would include the food and drink sector?

[Patricia Gibson]

Indeed. One of Ayrshire’s real selling points, and one of the reasons why so many tourists go there—apart from the fantastic scenery and the lovely people—is the provision of gastronomic delights, some of which my hon. Friend has just mentioned. However, I would not want the Minister to think that it was just about the alcohol. We have so much more to offer—although the alcohol does go down well too.

The event at which the gastronomic delights that the Minister, and indeed all Members, are invited to sample will take place on 8 February. It will be hosted by all four Ayrshire Members, and what it will show—if, indeed, it needs to be shown to those who have not yet been lucky enough to visit the county—is that Ayrshire is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the United Kingdom, which is well known for its outstanding and award-winning food and drink produce. It is home not just to a range of dairy, beef and seafood suppliers, but to world-renowned farmhouse cheese makers, ice cream producers, bakers, brewers, smokehouses, chocolatiers, and, of course, all the businesses that my hon. Friend mentioned.

[Alan Brown]

And the world Scotch pie championships.

[Patricia Gibson]

Yes, indeed.

Perhaps it is because of the presence of all the businesses that might supply the gastronomic feast that we could put in front of you in Ayrshire, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the town of Dalry, in my constituency, houses a very well-respected Michelin-starred restaurant, which I recommend to you.

Ultimately, the Ayrshire growth deal is about people. It is about removing barriers to employment, upskilling our workforce to address the issue of low pay, and promoting apprenticeships.

[Dr Whitford]

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that we have an additional strength. The three separate campuses belonging to Ayrshire College work closely with our local employers in the aerospace and food and drink sectors to ensure that the young people training in those sectors—along with other young people from the senior sections of our schools—have access to the same equipment and materials that they would use professionally. It is a great relationship: the college is delivering the skills that local industry needs.

[Patricia Gibson]

Absolutely. That is an excellent point. I think that the other colleges in the United Kingdom should note the links between Ayrshire College and local employers. That delivery to young people of the skills that employers say they need and that are in short supply is second to none. The college has won many accolades—far too many for me to mention to the Minister today—for its work in this sphere, and in several others as well.

[Alan Brown]

Ayrshire College recently opened a £53 million new campus in Kilmarnock. It is a fantastic facility, and it is all about getting people ready to go into the workplace. It has been built on the site of the former Johnnie Walker bottling plant; that iconic industry has been lost to the town. As part of the growth deal, the HALO project is expected to achieve the final regeneration of the entire site. It is predicted that the project will generate nearly 1,000 jobs, and it is shovel-ready. That is another fantastic aspect of the Ayrshire growth deal: some projects come out of the ground very quickly, and we see real results within a very short time.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. As the Minister will be well aware, economic growth creates more economic growth: it creates its own dynamic. If we secure this investment, Ayrshire will grow from a flower into a tree. [Interruption.] That was very poetic; I may represent some of the parts of the country that Robert Burns was familiar with, but I do not have his skill in that regard.

We want to remove the barriers to employment, to upskill our workforce to address the issue of low pay, to promote apprenticeships, linking them with schools and investing in our schools and local colleges, and to support local companies with the greatest ambitions for growth. We also want to attract new inward investment, to deliver on key infrastructure projects such as the Dalry bypass—which is very close to starting—to improve connectivity, to improve public transport, and to improve digital connectivity by investing in the roll-out of superfast broadband.

I am very pleased that we have secured this debate on the Ayrshire growth deal in the Chamber of the House of Commons. I am delighted that, as far as I have been able to establish, this is the first time Ayrshire has been centre-stage in the House of Commons. I am proud that my colleagues have, with me, set out the ambitious plans for Ayrshire—our bold vision which requires what is, in the scheme of things, quite a modest £359.8 million of investment, which will of course be in partnership with the Scottish Government and local authorities. I am delighted that the UK Government are engaged in this debate and I hope that, with this investment forthcoming, Ayrshire can enjoy inclusive growth and her greatest asset—her people—can reach their true potential.

If I may be permitted to have another bash at the poetry, I will add that, relative to what it is now, as much as it is now, the Ayrshire growth deal could awaken what may be called the economic sleeping giant of Ayrshire. Wonderful as this part of the country is, it could be—and I hope, with the UK Government’s help, it will be—so much more.

The Ayrshire growth deal seeks to create a virtuous circle of growth: growth in business leading to growth in employment, and growth in individual household prosperity—and, as a benefit from that, growth in health outcomes. I urge the Minister to support it, and I urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to offer support to Ayrshire’s growth deal when he delivers his deliberations in his spring statement on 8 March. I urge him to work with us—the four Ayrshire MPs—the three Ayrshire local authorities, and the Scottish Government.

This vision is a partnership of the best in the private and public sectors and represents key stakeholders in Ayrshire. It represents the local knowledge of Ayrshire College, the University of the West of Scotland, and the Ayrshire chamber of commerce, which has been fused with the national expertise of Scottish Enterprise, Skills Development Scotland, the Scottish Futures Trust and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. We are all working together for the good of Ayrshire and her people. I ask that the UK Government in their spring statement join in with and support that work and invest in the county and the people of Ayrshire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I do not accept that characterisation. It is important to note that employment in North Ayrshire and Arran is up by 1,100 over the past year and by 300 overall since 2010, so things are clearly moving in the right direction.

[Patricia Gibson]

The Minister is correct to talk about the importance of city deals, but is it fair that communities that do not happen to be part of a big city are left to suffer without UK Government support? He was quite right to mention the Scottish Government, which are on board and doing all they can, but I said in my speech—I know he was listening—that UK Government support is essential here. Is Ayrshire to be punished simply because, through an accident of geography, it does not happen to be part of a city?

[Michael Ellis]

The hon. Lady clearly represents a picturesque rural area, but she will no doubt recognise that the United Kingdom Government have provided very significant support to large conurbations, to city areas, by way of the city deals, which we use as an example of the Westminster Government’s support for such areas. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the city deals are an example of the Government’s support. This option is open to the Scottish Government, who have devolved responsibility for economic development. There is no rationale for disregarding the fact that the Scottish Government, wishing to have that devolved responsibility, do have it and can use the very significant resources available to them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

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

1. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on the Ayrshire Growth Deal.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

We have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on how the Government can boost growth and productivity across Scotland and the UK. The Government are discussing city deals for Edinburgh and Stirling, and we are looking forward to receiving proposals from the Tay cities. The Government are focused on taking those deals forward as we look to agree city deals for all of Scotland’s great cities.

[Patricia Gibson]

Would the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that the Ayrshire growth deal would generate investment and create the economic conditions to achieve a step change throughout Ayrshire, an area of huge potential? Will he commit today to working actively and constructively with the four Ayrshire MPs, the three Ayrshire local authorities and the Scottish Government to support the deal, to the benefit of the whole county of Ayrshire?

[Mr Gauke]

Up to this point, growth deals have been city growth deals and, by definition, have focused on cities. As I said earlier, we have made a lot of progress on all the Scottish cities. Of course, it is open to the Scottish Government to take forward projects to enable growth in the county of Ayrshire, if they wish to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I am happy to discuss. It is worth putting on record that VAT is projected to raise £138 billion for the public finances this year. We have one of the highest thresholds in the EU, but I am always happy to listen to colleagues. I know that the concerns of the tourism industry are to the fore in the minds of many colleagues.

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

T6. Last week, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority began a statutory consultation on UK Government plans to cut final salary pensions across the nuclear estate, which will have an impact on 16,000 workers, including hundreds in my constituency. Is the Chancellor aware that this is a betrayal of promises made by Margaret Thatcher to nuclear workers when the electricity industry was privatised?

Concentrix

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party will fully support Labour’s motion. I thank the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) for making the case so eloquently, but I think it is worth while reiterating some key points.

HMRC gave the contract to Concentrix, with the

“additional capacity to review and correct tax credit claims that are potentially based on incorrect information.”

One of the main tasks of Concentrix was to find people with an “undisclosed partner” and to see whether they were claiming the benefit as a single person but actually living with others. That is where the problem really begins. Concentrix spent a considerable amount of money putting out “fishing” letters to try to catch people claiming fraudulently. In a written answer on 7 September, the Treasury Minister said that Concentrix sent out 381,000 letters to tax credit claimants requesting proof of single status; 254,000 letters asking for details of hours worked; and 312,000 letters asking for evidence of childcare use.

Concentrix’s logic was that, unless people replied with the appropriate evidence, their tax credits would be stopped. However, despite all those letters apparently being sent out, thousands of people had absolutely no idea they were being investigated. Quite often, they did not know that they were under investigation, or that their tax credits had been stopped.

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

Given the clampdown on supposedly fraudulent claims with these fishing letters, would it not be good to see the same rigour applied to aggressive corporate tax avoidance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

The focus should be on what went wrong, waiting to see what the National Audit Office comes up with—I shall say more about that shortly—observing the reaction to that and dealing with the issues, rather than getting into a debate about whether the gesture of an apology should be made. That said, I am pleased that the Government are not seeking to nit-pick the Opposition motion, that we are not going to divide the House, and that, effectively, we will support the motion. That, I think, speaks for itself.

In the light of the problems that had been raised with me, I welcomed the Government’s action in making it very clear that the contract would not be renewed. It is over a month since the last new case was sent to Concentrix. I am also pleased that HMRC is moving in to resolve many of the issues.

[Patricia Gibson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Foster]

Will the hon. Lady give it a moment? I shall make some more progress, for now.

I said that HMRC was moving in. It should be noted that that organisation has had its own customer service issues in the past. In fact, in the next half hour my fellow members of the Public Accounts Committee will be discussing and examining its customer service. There have been some welcome improvements recently, but many Members who are present today will have had their own experiences of sitting and waiting to get through to the “hotline”.

Concentrix: Tax Credit Claimants

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Westminster Hall

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

Like other Members in the Chamber, I am all too aware of the significant number of people caused great hardship by the withdrawal of tax credit payments. Many of them are in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran. Some of my constituents have had payments stopped because the claimant has been incorrectly accused of sharing a home with a non-existent partner. Tax credits have been suddenly and unexpectedly withdrawn, with the claimant even having difficulty in securing any kind of explanation, however misguided and mistaken that explanation turns out to be. Claimants are on the phone for hours over weeks and weeks, and are caught up in a grotesque bureaucratic nightmare. The system seems to mock their hardship, leaving them to rely on food banks.

There can be no doubt that the system is a mess. Concentrix’s indiscriminate and groundless accusations of fraud directed at low and middle-income families is completely unacceptable, and cause huge emotional distress, financial hardship and utter despair. Now we know from reports that Concentrix’s misconduct could be in breach of the Data Protection Act, since claimants’ details have been known to have been sent to the wrong address. The allegations are extremely serious and must be fully investigated by both Concentrix and HMRC. Outstanding cases must be dealt with urgently. Only then will the hardship caused end. I urge the Minister to indicate how and by when that will happen. Concentrix’s contract expires in May 2017, but the suffering continues right now. Urgent action is needed to protect claimants from this appalling situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Kirby]

I will not give way.

Thirdly, anyone who does not agree with Concentrix’s decision has a right to ask for a review called a mandatory reconsideration. HMRC has allocated its own staff to carry out such reviews within 21 days of the request. It is a large organisation with flexible staffing, so it is able to deal with peaks and troughs of demand. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the issue of extra costs, but I am confident that there will not be any.

[Patricia Gibson]

Given the extra work being created for HMRC to clean up the mess created by Concentrix, does the Minister have any view on the fact that one third of HMRC staff will be cut by 2021?

Oral Answers to Questions

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)]

I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in this interesting and increasingly complex matter. It is very important that people have the skills they need to help them to navigate financial matters, which is why in 2014 the coalition Government made financial education part of the national curriculum in English schools. That said, I am quite happy to concede that there is more work to be done.

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

T6. Even excluding cuts to welfare and capital spending, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that funding for day-to-day public services will fall between 2009-10 and 2019-20 by the equivalent of about £1,800 per head, while between 2014-15 and 2019-20, day-to-day spending per head is forecast to fall by £1,000 per head. What plans does the Chancellor have to reverse this dangerous trend?

[Mr Hammond]

I have no plans at the moment to reverse the spending plans set out by my predecessor. Any such plans will be announced in the autumn statement. I would say to the hon. Lady, however, that Scotland now has devolved taxation and spending powers and can consider addressing the balance within its own competence.

Fixed Odds Betting Terminals

Patricia Gibson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I seek a lesser number in the shops, and fewer shops as well. We agree on many things, but we do not agree on this topic. The opinion that I express will win: ComRes did a survey of MPs seeking their opinion, and of the MPs who responded, seven out of 10 want FOBTs regulated. They want a reduction in the number of machines and shops. It was quite clear. If a private Member’s Bill is brought before the House—some in this Chamber are of a mind to do that—we can tackle the problem.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that reducing the maximum stake to £2, which is opposed by betting shops, would be a good way forward?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for that; it is one of my concluding points. I know that other Members are of the same opinion. Yes, the maximum stake should be lowered; then we could manage the issue, so that people are not deprived.

The regulation of FOBTs is out of kilter, as I have said. The only material restriction is the four machines per shop. We have seen an increase nationally in the number of betting shops in town centres, and last year the Government stepped in and imposed a £50 staking threshold on fixed odds betting terminals, above which players are required to identify themselves to staff or sign up for a loyalty card. The objective of this measure is to help players stay in control. I suggest that that has not happened. The measure is non-evidence-based and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport failed to quantify what impact it would have on players other than the £17 million reduction—1%—in bookmaker revenue from the machines. Secondary research based on the British gambling prevalence survey 2010 estimates that up to 40% of B2 revenue comes from at-risk and pathologically addicted players—higher than all other combined gambling activities—so the Government predicted very little impact. There is also evidence that bookmakers are using the player registration as a mechanism to market FOBTs further.

An evaluation of the DCMS assessment of the £50 measure so far, carried out by Landman Economics, highlighted issues with the quality of the data provided by the bookmakers; it also noted that DCMS could not assess changes in staking, mentioned the absence of a pilot scheme so that the measure could be evaluated better, and noted that the evaluation omitted key questions that it is important to consider when looking at the success or failure of the £50 regulations. For example, the question why fixed odds betting terminal machine players might wish to remain anonymous is not discussed. Despite the Government measure, players are still able to stake up to £100 per spin, and it appears that bookmakers are using the change as an opportunity to further market products to vulnerable gamblers. Even £50 is still materially out of kilter in the normal gambling world.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. We have witnessed today the common agreement among most in this Chamber that there is a particular problem with fixed odds betting terminals, which leads those who are vulnerable and seduced by the promise of easy money into all sorts of difficulty.

In my constituency and the neighbouring constituency, there are 135 FOBTs in bookmakers, where gamblers racked up losses of more than £5 million in the year to 2015. Those are two constituencies with some of the deepest pockets of poverty and deprivation in the entire United Kingdom, and they host 37 betting shops. That spend of more than £5 million is set to increase, and campaigners have expressed deep concern.

This problem affects some of the most vulnerable people in communities right across Scotland and the United Kingdom. People who struggle with gambling are drawn in by the glamour, the glitter and the promise of easy wins for the hollow thrill that these machines offer. They promise so much and deliver so little. We have heard today that vulnerable players are gambling as much as £100 in 20 seconds. Who can afford to sustain such losses without facing huge difficulties? It is no wonder that FOBTs are called the crack cocaine of the gambling world.

So far, the approach of the gambling industry has been about self-exclusion, but we know that that does not work. Research has shown there were around 22,000 self-exclusions in 2012-13, but more than two thirds of those who self-excluded cancelled the exclusion after the minimum period expired. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) has pointed out, this is an issue of social justice. It is clear that the particular danger of these machines is that so much money can be lost so quickly. We cannot continue to stand aside and watch this problem develop. The casino industry has said in evidence to the Scottish Parliament that these machines are a hard form of gambling and are completely unsuitable, as we have heard today, for the unsupervised environment of a bookmakers shop.

We know that more research needs to be done to inform policy. We need play to be safe and enjoyable. The Responsible Gambling Trust has said there should be further studies so that we can target problem gamblers using informed research. It is time the Government looked at the recommendations from the Responsible Gambling Trust on these machines.

We have heard today about inconvenient truths, and I would like to point out one such truth. We have all seen areas—usually ones with socially disadvantaged communities—that have bookie after bookie on each street corner. Despite what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) said, 55 of the most deprived boroughs in the United Kingdom have more than twice as many betting shops as those in the most affluent areas. That is an inconvenient truth. Too many local authorities feel powerless to stop that clustering, and the Scottish Government have taken action to tackle the issue through planning policy.

The betting industry has claimed that reducing the maximum stake from £100 to £2 would put betting shops at risk. It is a little known fact that like the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), I, too, once worked for betting shops—for two high street betting shops to put myself through university, working in just about every bookmakers in and around Glasgow. I can tell hon. Members categorically that there were no FOBTs at that time and that profitability for bookmakers was never an issue. There are now about four terminals in each shop.

I want to make a very important point. There has been an attempt to make political points in this debate, which is utterly inappropriate, but they have been raised and therefore must be answered. It was suggested that the Scottish National party did not table any amendments to the Scotland Bill with regard to these machines. I can tell the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who made that point, that that is utterly untrue. Perhaps he was so busy working with his Tory allies against more powers for Scotland that he missed it. The SNP tabled an amendment on 4 November 2015 to clause 45 on page 47 and it was not accepted. It is true that some power has been devolved under the Scotland Act 2016, but what the Scottish Government are not able to do with the powers is retrospectively re-examine the licences for the number of betting terminals that are already available. The way that the powers have been devolved will create confusion because there will, in effect, be a two-tier system.

We know that these machines are an issue. We know that we need to tackle it, and I ask the Minister—if one thing comes out of today’s debate—to seriously consider making the maximum stake £2 so that people can gamble with much more safety and responsibility, and so that they are less open to being preyed upon by these machines and mistaken about the riches that they offer.