Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2024

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 General Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I will also support the order, but I too have some questions. Too often in the pensions field, we have seen the Government and the regulators act in two ways. I doubt that any of us are without constituents who have been affected by scandals such as those at London Capital & Finance, the Atomic Energy Authority pension scheme and the British Steel pension scheme—the list goes on and on. There cannot be any doubt that the way in which the Government moved in the mid-2000s and the 2010s made it easier for people to do different things with their pensions. That is how they saw it. It also made it far too easy for people to get caught out and scammed out of their pensions. The risks were not properly thought through at the time and, to a large extent, we are still playing catch up.

The victims of some of the schemes that I mentioned still have not got the money back, and some of them never will. Could the Minister give more detail on what specific criteria applicants will need to satisfy in order to be allowed to operate a pension dashboard, and what follow-up action will there be? How will we make sure either the Government or the Financial Conduct Authority will be able to make sure that a business that met the criteria at the start continues to meet it after two years, three years, five years and so on?

I want to reiterate some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Wansbeck about security standards, particularly for information security. This is clearly going to be an area of interest to the Information Commissioner’s Office because it is responsible for the protection of personal data in any circumstances. It concerns me when a legal regulatory responsibility is split between two regulators, especially when one of those regulators is the FCA. Too often we have seen catastrophes that could have been prevented were it not for the fact that the Financial Conduct Authority thought it was somebody else’s job to regulate and somebody else thought it was the FCA’s job. Can the Minister give a bit more detail about where precisely the regulatory boundary will lie between the Financial Conduct Authority and the Information Commissioner’s Office? How will he make sure that, if there is a problem with where that boundary lies, it will mean that two people try to intervene rather than them both standing back and assuming that it is other person’s responsibility?

Assuming that the data on someone’s dashboard will have to have come from, for example, the Money and Pensions Service, and that that service will have to have brought information about somebody’s state pension, possibly indirectly, from the Department for Work and Pensions, what will the Minister do to make sure that the people who hold the initial information—such as the DWP or the Money and Pensions Service—are not legally permitted to share that data with anyone until after the registration has been fully cleared? What will he do to ensure that they stop providing that information immediately if, for any reason, the registration comes into doubt?

It is one thing to say that firms will not be allowed to operate these systems if they are not registered, but we should also surely say that those who provide information into a system and who provide access to electronic means of exchanging information have a responsibility as well. If the Money and Pensions Service has authorisation to hold somebody’s personal data, surely it can only release that information with the service user’s explicit permission, and it should not be allowed to do that until after it has been approved by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Finally, will there be any restrictions on the operators of a dashboard using the information that will be held there for any other purposes? Will they be allowed to use that information to provide helpful advice—as they would see it—to push their own products? Will they be allowed to suggest to somebody, “I see you’re getting a pension from so and so—have you thought about shifting it to somewhere else? Because you would do better out of that.”

There is a very grey area between the provision of information and the provision of pension advice. Again, far too many people have been caught out because they were given what they thought was independent advice, but what was actually a sales pitch for particular pension schemes. Could the Minister please explain what steps are contained either within this order, or elsewhere, to make sure that the benefits of the pension dashboards, which I agree could be very significant for the pension holder, will not be tempered, or even undone completely, by placing the holder at greater risk of suffering the fate that far too many of my, and all our constituents, have already suffered? They put their pensions somewhere they thought was safe, but when the time came to collect those pensions, they discovered that they had disappeared.

[Bim Afolami]

A lot of interesting points have been made, and I will address those made by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, who raised the broader policy agenda around open banking. In response to her question about whether I will take a holistic view, the answer is yes. It is important to see all of these things in one picture, and I am doing a lot of work with the industry on that.

However, it is important to see that there are fundamental differences between the goals of open banking and pension dashboards—and this also addresses some of the points made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes. Open banking seeks to enable data sharing and increased competition and innovation in the banking market, whereas pension dashboards will help increase consumer awareness and understanding of their pensions. Therefore, in terms of what the purpose of those services are, we are talking about a difference between producers and consumers. One of the key differences is that it would be very unusual for somebody not to know the provider of their bank account, whereas we know that people have lost track of their pensions—often because they have so many different pots.

On the hon. Lady’s question about whether pension dashboards will use the Government’s One Login service, the short answer is that I do not know, but I am happy to write to her on that. I confess that I will have to check that myself, and I thank her for that question. On the hon. Lady’s question about timing, this SI is the beginning of the process whereby, as soon as possible, we will make sure that the architecture is developed safely.

That takes me on to not just the hon. Lady’s point, but also the point made by hon. Member for Glenrothes about minimising the risk of people losing their data. It is important for the Committee to know that no data is stored on pension dashboards. As a result, it is not possible to mass-harvest individuals’ data via dashboards technology. As for the Money and Pensions Service, security standards are designed to ensure that the ecosystem interface of qualifying pension dashboards meet the appropriate level—

[Peter Grant]

I appreciate the Minister’s reassurances, but he will be aware that it was not possible for anybody at Fujitsu to mess about with the information held on Horizon until somebody discovered that it was possible. Without going into too much detail, at what level of expertise and at what level of independence from the whole project are the assurances of IT security being tested?

[Bim Afolami]

The hon. Gentleman asks at what level. In terms of the Money and Pensions Service, it is the National Cyber Security Centre that is advising specifically on these. I am happy to talk to him about it in future weeks and months, but that is the level of seriousness with which we take this issue.

When it comes to other private sector providers, as we talked about at the beginning of the debate, the FCA will determine at which point they are able to connect to the technical architecture. There are various dependencies, including the time required for them to familiarise themselves with the rules, when the architecture is ready and various other things, but the FCA will determine that. Why? I go back to the whole purpose of this statutory instrument: the FCA will make sure that this is a regulated activity to address the concerns of the Committee and others, because it is very important, as we all agree.

The SI introduces an important addition to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 to ensure that pension dashboard operators are appropriately regulated and that consumers are protected. I am glad that there appears to be broad support from the Committee for the aims of the order. I thank Committee members for this debate, which I hope they have found informative, and I hope that they will join me in supporting this secondary legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Local Bank Branch Closures

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Amy Callaghan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is the hesitancy and uncertainty that has such a detrimental impact on communities such as Brechin.

For vulnerable people, the internet often feels like an unfamiliar and unsafe place to handle their money. For them, the advice and reassurance they can only get from an in-person bank teller is vital. For them, the extra miles to the next nearest bank branch might be too far to travel.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

On the question of the additional distance to travel, may I flag up the experience of my constituents in Buckhaven when TSB closed a branch there a few years ago? It very kindly produced a wee map showing the location of the nearest TSB bank in High Street, Methil. The only problem was that it was not in High Street, Methil; it was in High Street, Leven—not only a different town, but a different constituency. The address it gave in High Street, Methil was part of the old high street that was demolished 40 years ago to make way for housing. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is just an insult to constituents and to communities when a bank that has taken the decision to close a service is so ignorant that it cannot even be bothered to send somebody to walk the distance to make sure the bank it is directing people to actually exists?

[Amy Callaghan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. That is a frustration we share. The maps sent out by many a bank branch are complicated and sometimes not relevant to the communities that they are being sent to, so I completely agree.

Just last night it was flagged to me that an elderly constituent of mine living in Kirkintilloch with a brain injury has been struggling to access banking services since the closure of Barclays in the town centre. The shift to centralised bank hubs like Barclays in Glasgow brings with it a litany of issues, such as the confusion and accessibility issues my constituent is experiencing.

With every local bank branch closure I am assured of two things upon meeting with the bank in question: there will be no forced redundancies, and all vulnerable customers have been contacted and bank staff will work with them to have a seamless transition to their next closest bank. But my constituency casework is proof that for far too many people, that is just not enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)]

I thank the contributors on both sides of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) and for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), and of course the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) for securing this debate, which has rightly given her constituents a voice on something that they feel very strongly about. I know there is real strength of feeling across the House about this subject, but it falls to me to be clear that the nature of banking is changing.

As in so many other areas of the modern world, the long-term trend, whether we like it or not, is towards greater use of digital or telephone services. According to UK Finance, last year only a third of UK adults had carried out any banking activities face to face in a branch. The hon. Lady talked about Kirkintilloch, but 94% of those who use that branch also use the app, mobile or telephone services. The bank asserts—whether this is right or not I do not know—that fewer than 10 people were regularly using the branch. In the same period of time last year, nine out of 10 UK adults banked online or through a mobile app. More than nine in 10 of us are now using contactless payment methods, including throughout this House, and only 6% of people are now solely using cash. That is not limited to any particular demographic: 80% of adults aged between 65 and 74 use online and mobile banking as well, and less than a third of that age group regularly use a branch.

[Peter Grant]

Given that the Minister and most of his ministerial colleagues are so fond of online services everywhere else, can he explain why in these first two days back in Parliament Members have spent about three hours doing nothing while trooping through the Lobbies to vote when we could have on voted online in about two minutes flat? Why is doing things in person the right thing to do here but the wrong thing to do everywhere else?

[Andrew Griffith]

In the interest of time I will stick to the topic, but I am delighted that the hon. Member is here in person, as indeed are you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Change is not comfortable, but it does happen. Let us consider payphones. It would not surprise me if Hansard had records of similar debates about the decline of payphones. At one point, at their peak in the 1990s, there were almost 100,000 payphones in this country. Today there is just a fraction of that number. Technology has moved on, and nearly everybody has access to either a landline or a mobile phone.

By the same token, it would make little sense to force a business to keep a physical branch open when developments in the market mean that eyeballs and footfall have moved elsewhere. Nor would our high streets be particularly well served by bank branches gathering dust and lying essentially unused. We need to find new uses for them—perhaps the aspiration of the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire for independence will produce new uses for these bank branches—in the same way that so many of our communities and villages today have a Blacksmith’s Arms public house.

Public Sector Pay

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend makes some sensible points, and he is absolutely right on the pension changes that we announced in the Budget, which the British Medical Association had been for a long time asking for, and it welcomed them. For clarity, I should make it clear that health and care workers remain exempt from the immigration health surcharge. He speaks a lot of wisdom about potential refinements to the timetable, and we will look at those carefully.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for an advance copy of his statement. It was noticeable that in his initial statement he did not mention the fact that the British economy has been at a standstill since before the pandemic. It was noticeable that neither he nor the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), want to admit the part that Brexit has played in that. Everybody has been affected by covid and the war in Ukraine, but only one state in Europe is suffering from the self-inflicted damage of Brexit, and that is why economic growth in the European Union is and will continue to be higher than here.

While we certainly welcome the news that the Government have finally decided to honour the pledge on public sector pay, will the Chief Secretary acknowledge that in almost every single case the pay increases being offered to public sector workers will be less than increases in the cost of living, so in real terms they are a cut? Will he acknowledge that in almost every case the Scottish Government have already settled with our essential public sector workers in Scotland, in almost every case with a substantially higher pay deal and in most cases—certainly throughout our NHS—without a single day being lost through strike action? What are the Scottish Government getting right that this Government find so difficult?

One of the biggest challenges facing the economy is a shortage of workers, so what a brilliant move to address that by charging essential workers more to come here and contribute to our economy. Can we have full details of the increases to immigration fees, including a full statement of the expected economic impact, including an indication of the likely impact on immigration numbers? Will we be driving away essential workers and causing more damage to the economy simply to feed the right-wing fantasies of the Daily Mail and the Express? Given that there is almost unanimous agreement in Scotland that we need more immigration, not less, is it not time for the Scottish Parliament, answerable to the Scottish people, to be given the powers to decide on the immigration policies we need, rather than constantly being dragged down by the failed policies of this United Kingdom Government? Does he accept that rampant inflation and stagnant economic growth are not essential, but are deliberate political choices of this failed Government?

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I think we can agree to disagree on some of that. What we have to understand is that if we look at the growth levels over the past two years in the G7, this economy and this country have performed well. He makes a number of points. People are getting weary of this constant refrain around Brexit. There are people who voted for Brexit and people who did not; it has happened, and we will now take every step we can to maximise the benefits and opportunities and the greater discretion that we have consequential of that decision.

With respect to the specific questions about visa fees, I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will publish those in due course. This is a carefully calibrated decision; it is not motivated by political dogma. It is a clear decision to take necessary steps to avoid additional borrowing, and to meet the outcomes and the numbers that derive from the PRBs, which give evidence-based advice to the Government. This is a careful set of judgments. Clearly they will not please everyone, but we have to make decisions in the interests of the whole economy at this time.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Peter Grant Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I am delighted to speak again to the Bill, following its passage through the other place. I thank my colleagues, Baroness Penn and Lord Harlech, for their expert stewardship of the Bill, as well as the Opposition spokespeople for their generally constructive tone.

Hon. and right hon. Members will be aware that the Bill is a crucial next step in delivering the Government’s vision of an open, sustainable and technologically advanced financial services sector. Members will also recall that this sector is one of the crown jewels of our economy, generating 12% of the UK’s economic activity and employing 2.5 million people in financial and related professional services. Few constituencies will be untouched by those jobs and economic benefits. For example, Scotland benefits from £13.9 billion of gross value added and an estimated 136,000 jobs.

The Bill seizes the opportunities of Brexit, tailoring financial services regulation to UK markets to bolster the competitiveness of the UK as a global financial centre and deliver better outcomes for consumers and businesses.

The Bill repeals hundreds of pieces of retained EU law relating to financial services and gives the regulators significant new rule-making responsibilities. These increased responsibilities must be balanced with clear accountability, appropriate democratic input, and transparent oversight. There has been much debate in this House and in the other place about how to get that balance right. As a result of the considered scrutiny, the Government introduced a number of amendments in the Lords that improved the Bill in this regard.

Lords amendments 32 to 34 require the regulators to set out how they have considered representations from Parliament when publishing their final rules. Lords amendments introduced by the Government require the regulators to report annually on their recruitment to the statutory panels, including the new cost-benefit analysis panels created by the Bill. The amendments also require the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to appoint at least two members of authorised firms to their CBA panels. This will ensure that their work is informed by practical experience of how regulatory requirements impact on firms. My hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) may recognise that amendment and I thank them for their efforts to ensure that the Bill delivers proper accountability.

Amendments from the Government also provide a power from the Treasury to require statutory panels to produce annual reports. The Treasury intends to use this power in the first instance to direct the publication of annual reports by the CBA panels and the FCA consumer panel. I hope the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) will welcome this as he tabled a similar amendment on Report.

Lords amendment 37 will enhance the role of the Financial Regulators Complaints Commission, which is an important mechanism for raising concerns about how the FCA, the PRA and the Bank of England carry out their functions. The amendment requires the Treasury, rather than the regulators themselves, to appoint the complaints commissioner, significantly strengthening the independence of the role.

In response to a debate in this House, the Government amended the Bill to introduce a power in clause 37 for the Treasury to direct the regulators to report on various performance metrics. On 9 May, I published a call for proposals, seeking views on what additional metrics the regulators should publish to support scrutiny of their work, focused on embedding their new secondary growth and competitiveness objectives. We have already had a number of helpful responses and we will come forward with proposals at pace following the expiry of the deadline next week. To further support that, Lords amendment 6 requires the FCA and the PRA to publish two reports on how they have embedded those new objectives within 12 and 24 months of the objectives coming into force. Taken together, these are a significant package of improvements to hold the regulators to account.

I know that access to cash is an issue of huge importance to many Members on both sides of the House. Representing the rural constituency of Arundel and South Downs, where the constituents are older than the UK average, this has always been at the forefront of my mind during the passage of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the campaigning work done by the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph on behalf of their readers as well as by groups such as Age UK and the Royal National Institute of Blind People.

Let me be clear: the Government’s position is that cash is here to stay for the long term. It provides a reliable back-up to digital payments, can be more convenient in some circumstances, and many, particularly the vulnerable, rely on cash as a means to manage their finances. The Bill already takes significant steps forward in protecting the ability of people and businesses across the UK to access cash deposit and withdrawal facilities for the first time in UK law. I am pleased to report that we have gone even further and introduced Lords amendments 72 to 77, which will protect people’s ability to withdraw and deposit cash for free. The amendments will require the FCA to seek to ensure reasonable provision of free cash access services for current accounts of personal customers. This will be informed by regard to a Government policy statement, which I expect to publish no later than the end of September.

Many Members are concerned about the separate issue of face-to-face banking. The FCA already has guidance to firms around the closure of bank branches and I hope that they and the industry will listen to the concerns of Members on behalf of their constituents on that issue.

Many Members across the House will have experienced the disproportionate application of rules requiring enhanced due diligence for politically exposed persons— PEPs. They and their families should not face some of the challenges and behaviours by banks that I have heard about. The Government are taking action to ensure that PEPs are treated in a proportionate manner. Lords amendment 38 requires the Treasury to amend the money laundering regulations to explicitly distinguish between domestic and foreign PEPs in law.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Will the Minister be more explicit as to what the close associates of domestic PEPs might include? Will it include, for example, somebody who has been elevated to the Lords by a former Prime Minister against the advice of the security services?

[Andrew Griffith]

In the interests of making progress on this substantial Bill, I shall not be tempted to comment on this further other than to say that I undertake, as I have to many other Members, to look very closely at that issue. For example, if by “associates” we mean either the adult children of people who have no real connection to the business that happens in this House, or family businesses that, again, are not directly connected to those who have put themselves forward for public service, I shall look closely at that. That is why we have tabled the amendments.

Lords amendment 39 requires the FCA to conduct a review into whether financial institutions are adhering to its guidance on the treatment of PEPs, and to assess the appropriateness of its guidance in light of its findings. Together, the amendments will lead to a change in how parliamentarians and their families experience the regime, and I am confident that they will be welcomed by all.

I will now set out the Government’s response to the non-Government amendments made in the Lords. The Bill introduces a new regulatory principle requiring the regulators to have regard to the Government’s net zero emissions target. Lords amendment 7 seeks to add conservation and the enhancement of the natural environment and other targets to this regulatory principle. The Government cannot accept the amendment as drafted, which is very broad and open to interpretation. The regulators must balance their objectives carefully, and they have a very important job to do. At a time when the Bank of England is rightly occupied by getting a grip on inflation, and the FCA is dealing with a range of challenges including working with lenders to ensure that there is support in place for those experiencing increases in mortgage interest rates, we must not overburden them with other considerations, particularly when they are vague or of uncertain relevance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

May I start by sending my condolences to my fellow Treasury Committee member, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh)? Her sister will be greatly missed by Members across all parties.

I am delighted at the Bill’s progress. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on all his work in taking into account the views expressed across the House. Of course, the existence of the Bill is a huge Brexit dividend in itself, enabling us to deregulate while strengthening financial services in the UK, which is in the top two financial services sectors in the world and creates up to 2 million jobs right across the UK.

So far, the Treasury Committee has proven to be a good overview body for the financial services and markets regulation that is coming back to the UK. That Committee has done a great job, and I can say that without appearing to boast because I was not on the Committee when it did that scrutiny. We have done a good job, and the Treasury Committee will continue to be the right place to provide the scrutiny and checks and balances that will always be needed in the financial services sector.

I point out, however, that their lordships need carefully to consider their approach to the Bill. Far from enabling us to seize the opportunity and recapture the initiative, they seem to be trying to over-burden the regulators, pinning them down with reports and further obligations and duties that would militate against the UK continuing to be one of the most successful places on earth for financial services.

[Peter Grant]

As a counter to that point, is the right hon. Lady as concerned as I am about the fact that, as well as being a successful breeding ground for financial services businesses, the United Kingdom is now seen worldwide as one of the best places to commit financial fraud?

[Dame Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important issue. He will know that huge efforts are being made to clamp down on financial fraud. It has been an insoluble issue over many decades, and of course, with advances with technology and so on, scammers and financial fraud continue to be a big problem, but that does not detract from the fact that the UK is hugely successful in financial services. I predict that the UK will also be hugely successful in green financial services around the world, enabling the net zero transition to take place using UK expertise and exports in that crucial area.

I was delighted to see the new competitiveness and growth objective, and that the PRA and FCA will be required to provide reports on how well it is being addressed. The Treasury Committee has taken evidence from both organisations, which welcome the opportunity to focus not just on stability but on how it affects our competitiveness around the world. That is important and represents a big opportunity for UK plc.

The complaints function is a great initiative that will definitely address the absolutely valid concerns of so many constituents across the UK about the poor behaviour in some of the responses to inquiries led by the FCA or the PRA. That independent, Treasury-led complaints function will be very important.

It is vital that my constituents in South Northamptonshire can have access to cash, so I am delighted that an obligation to ensure that that remains the case will be enshrined in this legislation. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) about the closure of banks. The Government initiative to create a new arrangement for post offices to provide “the last bank in town” services was a good one. I wonder whether over time we can expand that, because the loss of banks continues to be a big issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the SNP spokesman.

[Peter Grant]

As has been said throughout the passage of the Bill, our chief concern has always been that too many provisions in it do not go far enough. I am pleased to say that the other place has tightened up some aspects of the Bill. It is disappointing that this evening the Government seem determined to oppose some amendments that could have addressed more of our concerns and, in at least one case, seem determined to make an amendment that makes things even worse.

In the interests of brevity, I will not go through all the Lords amendments that the Government are happy to accept; I ask Members to take those as read. The first Government proposal that I have some concern about is their motion to disagree with Lords amendment 7. I appreciate that they have tabled alternative amendments, which they might think say pretty much the same thing or better, but Lords amendment 7 explicitly refers to targets set by any of the UK’s national Parliaments. They are not mentioned anywhere in the Government’s amendment (a) in lieu. I hope the Minister can explain why the Government are opposed to giving targets set by the devolved nations of this Union of equals the same status as those set in this place, because some of those targets and activities will relate to responsibilities that are explicitly devolved to one or more of the other nations of the United Kingdom. It does not seem very equal that some Parliaments can have their targets effectively regulated and others cannot.

I do not have any issue with Government amendments (b) and (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 7, although it seems strange that they have been tabled as alternatives, because they are entirely compatible with it. In fact, the Government could quite easily have tabled them in the Lords at the time.

As was said by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), Lords amendment 10 is a good amendment. I do not understand why the Government want to take it out. Are they against financial inclusion? If they think that financial inclusion is a good idea but that this amendment is not best way to pursue it, I would remind them that they have had months to come up with a better amendment. “Take it back, don’t agree it just now, and we promise to bring something back in the near future.” However, we have been promised effective measures on financial inclusion since before I was a Member of this place, but it has not happened yet, and the problem is getting worse all the time.

To answer the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), it is all very well for the Government to find ways to make post offices the last bank in town, but they are being shut left, right and centre as well, so there is no long-term protection for access to cash, especially in our poorest and most deprived communities, of which I represent more than my fair share. It is no comfort to them to be told, “The bank has closed, but you can use the post office,” if, as I have seen happen literally at the same time, the Post Office is saying, “We’re going shut the post office, but you can still use the bank.” That does not give any protection or comfort whatsoever.

Lords Amendment 36, on illegal deforestation and so on, is also a good amendment that we would have supported. We are willing to accept the Government alternative as an improvement in some regards. The biggest concern we have—it is one on which we would very much want the opportunity to give the House the chance to express its will this evening—is about one of the crazy ways in which this place deals with things, especially once legislation has been back and forth between here and the Lords. If this House wanted to disagree with Lords amendment 38, as I think quite a few of us will, we will not be allowed to do that unless the debate finishes within three hours. The ability of the democratically elected House of Commons to scrutinise and perhaps overturn a decision taken by the undemocratic, unelected House of Lords along the corridor therefore depends on how many people want to speak, how long they want to speak for, and how fast they want to talk.

Lords amendment 38 is about politically exposed persons and the way they are risk-assessed in relation to money laundering. It makes a very broad assumption about the amount of due diligence that needs to be exercised to prevent money laundering in the case of a politically exposed person from the UK—someone who, in the words of the amendment, is

“entrusted with prominent public functions by the United Kingdom”.

The assumption is that they are always less of a potential money laundering risk, as are their family and “close associates”, whatever that means. That is far too broad and sweeping an assumption.

I do not have an issue with any regulation being worded in a way that is proportionate to the risk, and I can understand the attraction of being able to designate some individuals as less of a risk than others, but this exemption is far too sweeping. What do we mean by “entrusted with prominent public functions”? As we all know, we have had very recent examples of people who were entrusted with the most prominent public function of all—the office of Prime Minister—turning out to be totally untrustworthy. How do we define a “close associate”? Would, for example, Evgeny Lebedev have been regarded as low risk simply because he could accurately have been described as a close associate of the then Prime Minister, who himself has turned out, as the House now agrees, to have been untrustworthy? When is a close associate not a close associate?

[Chris Grayling]

I want to probe a little on this. Would the hon. Gentleman classify somebody who, for example, gave a parking space to a camper van as a close associate?

[Hon. Members]

Aah!

[Peter Grant]

I think that both that intervention and the muttering from a sedentary position on the Treasury Bench give an indication of just how seriously this Government take money laundering. Perhaps we can all speculate as to the reasons why.

We are not against the idea that any regulation should be applied proportionately, but it is too sweeping a generalisation to say that, because of someone’s job or who they know, they somehow become less of a risk. Let me give just one example. Would Baroness Mone of PPE Medpro have been regarded as being at low risk of anything because she was a Member of the House of Lords and a one-time Government envoy?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Member that we are not allowed to directly criticise Members of the House of Lords by name.

[Peter Grant]

I stand corrected, Mr Deputy Speaker. Unless I said more than I intended to, I think I was asking a question; I was not expressing an opinion.

Let us not forget that over the last 10 to 15 years a huge amount of dirty money from Russia and other former Soviet republics has been laundered into the United Kingdom by people who, at least financially and in terms of their donations, were very closely associated indeed with leading politicians. It has to be said that, had Putin not carried out a second invasion of Ukraine last year—if he had been satisfied with the original illegal activity in Ukraine 2014—that money would probably still be coming in, because the Government only moved in a big way on dirty Russian money after the second invasion of Ukraine. They did not do anything, or anything like enough, in 2014 or afterwards, so we have to ask whether they are really serious about cutting off this dirty Russian money at source and handing it back to the people that it was originally stolen from.

I thought it was quite interesting that the Minister said that it was a bad idea to agree Lords amendment 10, to improve financial inclusion, at such a late stage, when the Government are happy to accept Lords amendment 38, to weaken our defences against money laundering, at the same late stage. That may give an indication of what the priorities might be of people who wield a lot of influence over the Government—maybe not the Minister’s own priorities.

As I have said, we in the SNP continue to support the Bill. Our concerns on almost all counts have been in areas that did not go far enough, such as the accountability of the regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority, for example. My issue is that the regulators have not been held properly to account for the myriad times they have failed to regulate and have simply not protected the public and investors. Other authorities have not protected pensioners. We can look at Blackmore Bond, London Capital and Finance, Premier FX, the British Steel pension scheme, the AEA Technology pension scheme, and hundreds of other financial scandals that were allowed to happen—or certainly allowed to happen as badly as they did—because the regulators did not do the job they were set up to do. They should be held accountable to this place and to the public for their failures to regulate. I am concerned that if we tie them up with too much regulation about how they regulate, and if they are worried about being dragged into Parliament or politically overruled when they do regulate, there is a danger that they will start to lose their independence from political interference, without which no regulator on these islands can ever be effective.

It is disappointing that the Government seem determined to reject some Lords amendments that would have made the Bill better, and to push through at least one that will significantly weaken it. It would be sad indeed if this elected Chamber were not allowed to express its will on whether amendment 38 makes the Bill better or worse. I for one believe that it makes it worse, and I hope we will be able to divide the House on it tonight.

[Chris Grayling]

I find it slightly ironic that I am following an SNP spokesman demanding more action on financial fraud, but there is always a place for a bit of amusement in the House. I will focus my remarks on the issue of deforestation.

[Peter Grant]

I am absolutely confident that the Scottish National party Westminster group will submit clean audited accounts to the Electoral Commission before the deadline. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Conservative party parliamentary group will not?

[Chris Grayling]

I think I may have touched a slightly raw nerve there, Mr Deputy Speaker.

First, I am personally grateful to the Minister, who has been extremely responsive on an issue that is crucially important, not just to the future of this country but the future of our planet. The loss of forest cover around the world—cleared for the growing of soy, the planting of palm oil plantations and beef cattle ranching—has been ecologically disastrous for the planet. Of course, in many of those areas, it has not created sustained agricultural land, but land that has been used for a few years and is now lying semi-derelict.

One of the great challenges for us as a planet is to restore some of the land that has been lost and replant some of the forest that has been lost, but we cannot tackle this problem unless we bring it to a halt now, and in many parts of the world, there are still real issues with illegal deforestation to produce those products. As a Government, we have already taken steps that I think are pathfinders: the introduction of the Environment Act 2021 has set a path for dealing with forest risk products, particularly in the supply chain and our retailers. That was a positive step that I think will make a real difference, and I look forward to seeing that process completed through the secondary legislation that identifies the individual products we are tackling. Through his amendments, the Minister has clearly set that as a starting point for financial services as well.

However, there is now a broadening consensus about the need to extend the due diligence provisions that we have introduced for the retail sector to financial services. The financial sector is lending money to, investing in, and doing bond issues for international businesses that have sometimes done a good job of monitoring their supply chains, but other times simply do not do enough to protect the products they are sourcing from the risk of illegal deforestation. The Minister may reference the Global Resource Initiative work led by Sir Ian Cheshire, who has been a great champion of this issue, and the Minister was very right to have been willing to pick up the initiatives set out in that report.

It is also something that is increasingly backed by the financial sector itself. I do not believe there is any contradiction between a successful financial services sector and proper responsibility in key areas such as deforestation, and we now see that the GRI report and the direction of travel set out in Lords amendment 7 is attracting support from institutions, including well-known ones such as Aviva, that amount to nearly £3 trillion of funds under management. The support is there, and I am grateful to the Minister for picking up that initiative and being willing to run with it. My request of him is not simply that we get on with it; we need to ensure that what he has announced today does not end up as just another review. Governments have review after review—not all lead to action. I take the Minister at his word that he will make this a process of action, rather than simply a further stage of looking at the issues again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) started this Bill’s progress through the House. I spoke at length and tried to cover as many topics as possible in my opening remarks, so I will be brief.

I extend my thoughts to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). I have never actually made it to the cash machine promised in her constituency, but her words echo whenever we talk about access to cash. I did make it to the constituency of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), one of the lucky constituencies to have one of the six hubs, of which we seek to see many more.

I welcome hon. Members’ acknowledgement of the substantial steps that the Government have taken to further enhance regulatory accountability through the passage of the Bill. The hon. Members for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) and for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and my right hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) all talked about that.

The largest part of the debate was about the importance of access to cash, and the Government have introduced Lords amendments for precisely that. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) good luck with procuring a hub for Great Harwood. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) spoke about access to cash, as did the Member with the most formidable knowledge of the important role played by the Post Office, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth). I and, I hope, the banks have heard the debate. It is important that they have been listening to the strong points made about not just access to cash but access to face-to-face branch facilities.

We heard from the hon. Member for Glenrothes about why Lords amendment 7 does not cover the devolved Administrations. I understand that this is not necessarily his desired outcome, but financial services legislation is a reserved matter. As an outcome, I hope to deliver a Brexit dividend—he may not particularly welcome that—for citizens in all parts of the country to protect those 140,000 jobs that, as we heard, Scotland relies on.

[Peter Grant]

Just to be clear, the Minister is saying that if the Scottish Government set a higher target for something than the UK Government do on behalf of England, the regulators will go with the UK Government’s low target, and if the UK Government set a higher target than the Scottish Government feel comfortable with, the regulator will go with the UK Government’s higher target, even in areas where an activity is devolved.

[Andrew Griffith]

We are always happy to listen to the hon. Member, but we are in danger of repeating ourselves.

Let me briefly give my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) the assurance he seeks that we will not just have another review. We seek action. We will be looking for a framework for due diligence and for how we can hold the financial sector to account. Both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire talked about how we can make the UK financial sector an exemplar on deforestation and support for nature. That is my aspiration, and I believe that it is shared across the House. The Government’s amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 36 will do that.

Government amendments made throughout the passage of the Bill reflect the comprehensive scrutiny and engagement of both sides of the House, just as we have heard tonight, and the Bill is the better for it as a result. I hope that their lordships will listen to the voice of this House. It is now time to pass the Bill and begin the really important work of tailoring our financial services regulation to serve the interests of the UK, bolster our competitiveness as a global financial centre, power growth in every part of the country and every part of the economy and, above all else, deliver better outcomes for the consumers and residents we represent.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 7.

Draft Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) (No. 2) Order 2023

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 7th June 2023 General Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The SNP will not oppose the draft order, but I would appreciate some clarification. We have to be up front that this is a controlled, measured and proportionate weakening of the consumer protection requirements that were put in place after the catastrophic financial crash 15 years ago.

In principle, we all support the position that there will be rare occasions when those consumer protection measures need to be weakened, and in some cases removed altogether for a short time in order to prevent even more serious harm that might have arisen had they been enforced. The Government’s argument is that the threatened collapse of Silicon Valley Bank UK Ltd was one such occasion. I do not think that anyone could argue with that, because we saw what happened in 2007 and 2008, when banks collapsed in a chaotic and uncontrolled way. In essence, the ringfencing requirements were introduced to try to prevent the situation arising ever again in which a bank was too big to be allowed to fail. The regime allows banks to fail in a way that causes as little damage as possible, and ideally none whatever, to the wider economy.

I do not think that there is any disagreement on the need for an exemption to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ring-fenced Bodies and Core Activities) Order 2014, because that was clearly part of what was needed to prevent the bank from failing completely. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade the Committee why that exemption needs to be made permanent, rather than applied for the usual four-year period. When the Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) Order 2023 was debated on 27 March, the Minister effectively said that the exemption was necessary—I am paraphrasing his words—because HSBC needed to be allowed its new subsidiary. There was no publicly funded bail-out because HSBC had had to bail it out to the tune of over £2 billion at the time, and possibly a bit more since.

I am not clear why that exemption needs to be made permanent. Are we saying that the subsidiary, Silicon Valley Bank UK, will continue to need bail-outs beyond the four-year period? Remember that HSBC would not have bought it had it thought that it would be a permanent drain on its resources. I appreciate that there is a big difference between liquidity issues and profitability issues, but SVB UK certainly did not have profitability issues; it made quite a handsome profit in the last financial year for which it reported. At the time of the takeover, HSBC thought that it would make a gain of around £1.4 billion on the purchase. It has now scaled that back, and in the quarter 1 results published on 2 May this year it gave a value of just over $1.5 billion, as opposed to a similar number of pounds. For something that it paid £1 for, $1.5 billion is still not bad.

The Minister referred to the letter of 9 May from the chief executive officer of the Prudential Regulation Authority. He pointed to the explanatory memorandum, which makes it clear that the draft order is not intended to have any impact whatever on the PRA’s powers or how it uses them. He specifically mentioned section 55M of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which, along with some of the sections around it, gives the PRA extensive powers. Will the Minister clarify just how widespread the PRA’s powers are? For example, could the PRA use its unaffected powers to reinstate some of the ringfencing requirements without recourse to Parliament? If there is to be a reimposition of the ringfence, does that need to be approved by Parliament in the same way as the exemption was?

My key question is this: is there an expectation that Silicon Valley Bank UK will have liquidity issues that need support from its parent company more than four years after the takeover? If we do not expect that, why do we need this order?

Council Tax and Stamp Duty Alternatives

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) for securing this important debate. Hartlepool has one of the highest council-tax-to-property-value ratios in the country. I pay three times more in council tax for my home in Hartlepool than for my rented London work flat, despite that flat being worth many times more than the Hartlepool home. That high cost is simply unfair on my constituents, and there is an urgent need for reform.

Reform based on a proportional property tax such as the one proposed by the Fairer Share campaign would save my constituents £950 on average. The question must be asked, though, why council tax is so high in Hartlepool and so comparatively low in Westminster. It is fair to concede that we have a larger number of band A properties in Hartlepool and more deprivation, so arguably bringing prosperity to the town will help to ease the council tax burden. Sadly, we also have many children in care, and Hartlepool Borough Council spends many thousands of pounds per week per child in care. That accounts for a large proportion of our council tax. I have also been told that the council spent over one third of a million pounds in one year with just one taxi company running children around.

The Conservative-independent coalition has been in power for only the past two years, and a ship as cumbersome as Hartlepool Borough Council takes more time than that to turn around. However, the local Labour party’s recent success in the local elections was based largely, I suspect, on its manifesto pledge to freeze council tax this coming year. I support council tax in Hartlepool being frozen, just as it was by the newly elected Conservative-led coalition in 2021—interestingly, that was not supported by the Labour group at the time, but now it has decided that it should be frozen. If the Labour group thinks it can freeze it, I think the Conservative-led coalition can do better. I will work with the new Conservative leader, examine Hartlepool’s accounts, sharpen our pencils and find a way to cut it. This is not an empty, unicorn promise to put on a local election leaflet; the local election is done. It is something that I believe should be done for the good of the people of Hartlepool.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady clearly blames the previous Labour administration in Hartlepool for the high council tax rates there. Why does she think that in Westminster the council tax on a typical band D property is over 50% higher than in Fife?

[Jill Mortimer]

I am not here to comment on comparisons between Westminster and Fife, but clearly huge amounts of money have been squandered in Hartlepool without any care. It has been the usual Labour spending of other people’s money—very sadly, as that money belongs to the hard-working families I represent. However, cutting council tax in Hartlepool is something for the short term. Looking further forward, we must find a fairer way for communities like mine. Councils must not be allowed to see this as carte blanche to go on careless spending sprees.

Councils run by Conservatives, with better fiscal responsibility, invest their money wisely. They do not fritter it away on vanity projects. They keep a rein on their public spending. They also invest in order to have other income streams than just asking for more handouts from their council tax payers and the Government. We have seen that in Hartlepool in the two short years of the Conservative-led coalition, which has worked with me to secure investment in the town and provide more jobs, for example at the Northern Studios and the production village led by the internationally acclaimed Northern School of Art. A proportional property tax would enable us to continue to deliver good services and to invest in prosperity-generating projects, while lowering the financial burden on the local community.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris, and to serve under you today. Let me join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on securing this well-attended debate. I note the largely cross-party nature of the contributions—with the exception of the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—and I will try to reflect that in my tone. We welcome this opportunity to discuss the important issue of property taxation, including the current status of council tax and stamp duty. I have heard the concerns that have been articulately put on behalf of Members’ constituents in many different parts of the country, and those concerns have been thoughtful and constructive.

For many people, council tax is the most fundamental tax: we pay it every month, it is highly visible, it has an impact on all sorts of important decisions and, when we pay it, we know what services we are getting for it. It has the strength unique in the taxation system of being local and personal. That is not to say that it is perfect, and we have heard today about some of the difficulties manifested in some communities.

Importantly, council tax is set, collected and retained by democratically elected local authorities, and I ask colleagues to think about that as we think about potential reforms. It ensures that households contribute to the cost of local services, whether that is fire and rescue, refuse collection, transport, libraries or—this is a particular passion for my constituents in Arundel and South Downs—dealing with potholes.

Council tax is a well-understood tax and has a high rate of collection and a stable base. It does not, for example, go up and down with property prices, as some potential alternatives might. Therefore, it gives local authorities a strong degree of certainty in their financial planning. On aggregate, it raises about £36 billion for local councils in England. That is about 57%—very importantly, the majority—of their core spending power. Council tax is the largest single source of revenue for local authorities. To ensure fairness, it is mitigated—we heard a little about this—through a range of reliefs, such as support for those on low incomes, a reduction for those with a disability and an exemption for students.

Stamp duty is an efficient tax to administer and collect. It raises a really substantial sum—£14 billion that the Government use to pay for essential services, such as the NHS, schools and police.

So these are not easy issues. For all of us thinking about the best way forward and about how to chart a course for reform, this issue does pose questions that are worth thinking about. Notwithstanding the advocacy of the proposal from many hon. and right hon. Members in the debate, neither the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Ealing North, nor the distinguished hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) actually went to the point of committing to make this change, so I would contend that there is a little more work to do.

[Peter Grant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

Although the hon. Member does not represent England, perhaps he would like to make that commitment.

[Peter Grant]

At least we agree that we are no longer a United Kingdom—I am pleased to agree with the Minister on that.

Given the increasing complexity and scale of services that local government in Scotland and England has to provide, does the Minister see any benefit in giving councils the power to raise taxes based on something other than simply property values? Is it time to broaden the base so that they can raise their own incomes tax, VAT, sales tax or tourist taxes—or are the Government obsessed with the idea that their core tax will always be based on imaginary property values?

[Andrew Griffith]

In the interests of trying to reflect the views of hon. Members, I will not be distracted by that interesting idea. Again, the proposal that has been put forward does acknowledge the opportunity for local authorities to diversify their sources of revenue. One of the issues that, as a democrat, I find most problematic with this proposal is the impact it would have on local authorities. Their ability to raise revenue for themselves would be taken away, which would be one of the single biggest—and adverse, in my view—issues for local government. The system is often accused of being overly centralised, but this proposal would absolutely remove any ambiguity whatever, and that is something that the advocates of this proposal may want to think about.

Cost of Living

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I think the principle of levelling up across the United Kingdom recognises that we do not have symmetry across the local economies of the United Kingdom, and it is about investing to improve the productive capacity. Let me make some progress.

Let me look at the economic matters at hand. As I mentioned earlier, energy costs have contributed significantly to price rises. That is why we are paying half of people’s energy bills. At the Budget, we announced that the energy price guarantee will remain at £2,500 for the next three months, funded in part by the energy profits levy. Just under £26 billion between 2022-23 and 2027-28 is expected to be raised by the levy, on top of around £25 billion in tax receipts from the sector over the same period through the permanent tax regime. This measure is saving the average family a further £160 on top of the energy support measures already announced. That includes this Government’s help for all domestic electricity customers with £400 off their energy bills through the energy bills support scheme, and in providing a £200 payment for households that use alternative fuels such as heating oil through the alternative fuels payment scheme.

Alongside holding down energy bills, increasing benefit payments, increasing pension payments, a council tax rebate, the multibillion-pound household support fund—attracting Barnett consequentials—and freezing fuel duty, we are giving up to £900 in cost of living payments to households on means-tested benefits. That means that more than 7 million households across the UK have been paid a £301 cost of living payment by Wednesday 3 May as the first of three payments. This will be accompanied by a £150 payment for people on eligible disability benefits this summer, and a £300 payment on top of winter fuel payments for pensioners at the end of 2023. The latest payment follows on from up to £650 in cost of living payments delivered to households on means-tested benefits by the Government in 2022, with an additional £150 for individuals on disability benefits and £300 for pensioner households. Altogether, support to households to help with higher bills is worth £94 billion, or £3,300 per household on average across 2022-23 and 2023-24. Aside from helping the most vulnerable, the OBR’s analysis shows that, taken together, the freezing of fuel duty, changes to alcohol duty and the extension of the energy price guarantee will further lower consumer prices index inflation by 0.7 percentage points this year.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Could the Minister explain to me what has happened to the energy coming out of a country such as Scotland, which is a net exporter of energy, that suddenly makes it almost three times as expensive as it was before? Where is the 200% or 300% increase that people are paying on their fuel bills going? It is not going to the people of Scotland, so who is taking that money?

[John Glen]

I have set out the number of interventions we have made to support individuals and the taxation levies on energy companies that we have set.

With inflation running high, I understand the temptation of some to accuse companies of profiteering, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) mentioned that in her opening speech. I would like to be clear with the House that the Government stand against that practice. At a time of high inflation, companies should not be seeking financial gain at the expense of their customers. Fortunately, we have not seen widespread evidence of this in the UK thus far. Corporations’ gross profits as a percentage of GDP were 21.4% in the third quarter of 2022, which is in line with an average of 22% over the last 20 years. The net rate of return for non-financial companies—a measure of company profitability—fell in the third quarter of 2022 and remains lower than 10 years previously. Instead, companies have been hit by a combination of rising labour, energy and raw material costs, and have reacted accordingly. As I have said, and it bears repeating, we do not expect them to profit excessively, but we cannot expect them unsustainably to absorb all cost increases, so the best course of action is the course we have charted thus far—to bear down on inflation.

This is a Government of action and delivery, as I have set out. We have pledged to tackle inflation, bring down debt and grow the economy, and we are doing just that. We said we would help the most vulnerable through these challenges, and we are, and we have refined and developed those interventions to suit the evolving circumstances. We are focused on strengthening our great Union, halving inflation by the end of the year, easing the pressure on households, and boosting the economy and protecting growth—proving our economy is more resilient than predicted—as well as boosting employment to well above pre-pandemic levels and ensuring more people have the security of a steady wage. As a united Government, we will continue to remain focused on what really matters to the British people.

Funding for Major Infrastructure Projects

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Carmichael]

Absolutely. I am horrified that, having been a colleague of mine, my hon. Friend says she does not know much about ferry services—she has clearly not been listening! However, the point she makes is a good one.

This is where Treasury rules and funding come into play. If we are looking at ferries, for example, we look for a pay-down over a 20-year or possibly 30-year period. A tunnel will be several times that, but Treasury rules constantly push people towards a like-for-like replacement. They seem to lack the flexibility and creativity necessary to provide the services that will maintain the economic and social viability of such communities in the longer term.

There is also a continuing role for EU—sorry, for Treasury—funding.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

You were right the first time.

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, I am always right the first time.

There is a continuing role for the Treasury in relation to funding, because a significant proportion of the ferries that we are now looking to replace were purchased and commissioned in the first place with a proportion of EU funding. That funding now sits with the Treasury, so although transport as a whole is devolved, there is still an obvious and strong role for the Treasury.

Following on from the Tunnel Vision roadshows that we ran in the summer of last year, as we suggested, communities set up tunnel action groups to decide how they could make the case. The case for a big infrastructure project like that, for a small community, is always that it should basically be designed by the community itself. I am happy to tell the House that the Unst and Yell tunnel action groups, working together, have already obtained pledges in the region of £100,000 towards the £200,000 that they think might be necessary to get the first stage of a feasibility study.

The project will have not just local strategic importance, but national significance. Unst will probably be the earliest and most effective—possibly the only—spaceport in the United Kingdom that is capable of doing vertical as opposed to horizontal launches. The people behind the SaxaVord spaceport in Unst tell me every week that that will be critical to their ability to exploit to the maximum the potential of the project in which they are investing.

There is also the question of the carbon cost. In the medium to long term, tunnels will always be much more carbon-efficient than ferries, with respect both to running costs and to ongoing replacements.

The Treasury has a pot of money that is currently set aside as a consequence of the wish of the last Prime Minister but one, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), to build a bridge from south-west Scotland to Northern Ireland. I can promise the Minister that there are none of the problems with unexploded ordnance that befell that particular project. The money still sits there in a ringfenced pot, so if the Minister wants to stand up and give me a commitment to fund tunnels for Shetland, I will be delighted to take it.

What we are looking for at the moment is a bit of willingness from the Treasury to engage with our community and allow us the opportunity to make the contribution to the rest of the United Kingdom that we have always made and that we know we can continue to make. Might the Minister agree to meet me and a delegation from the Shetland communities and the Shetland Islands Council to hear their intentions and hear what they want to do to make this happen? A small amount of Treasury money at this stage, to establish the case with scientific and technical rigour in a way that as a community we may be unable to do for ourselves, could be transformative in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am pleased to begin summing up the debate, and it is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. I commend the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on her very well informed introduction to the debate. I heard her say that she did not win the ballot for this debate, but was asked to hold it later. That may be a lesson for us all: losing one vote does not prevent you from having another go later.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) gave a very interesting examination of the technical and organisational factors needed to get a project right, and to make sure that future projects go well. One thing that has struck me in this place is that when a big project goes wrong, nothing gets learned. If the Department of Health and Social Care has a project, the Department for Transport does not learn anything from the mistakes, so it makes exactly the same mistakes. We could fill a library with the things that we could learn from problems with Ministry of Defence contracting, for example. There does not seem to be any process for making sure that lessons learned are remembered and transferred across the whole organisation.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) gave a very interesting speech. I know a bit about Orkney and Shetland. I have not been to Shetland yet, but I have been to Orkney and hope to go back. He reminded us that we often think that a lot of the public are not interested in politics, but when they understand the impact that an issue will have on their life, they are interested. If the public are not interested, it is maybe more of a comment on politicians, who manage to turn the public off. It is certainly not the public’s problem if the way we do politics causes people to turn off.

I like the right hon. Member’s comments about the GP service on Islay, because several years ago two of my best friends spent two summers on the neighbouring island of Jura, providing cover for the only GP on the island; he was not allowed off the island unless he got cover. The right hon. Member reminded us that for a number of very remote communities in these islands, and sometimes for communities that are not all that remote, the realities of life can be very different from how they appear in this place, and possibly from the way they appear to Ministers or civil servants ensconced in their fancy buildings in Whitehall and around Westminster.

The right hon. Member mentioned the inflexibility of Treasury rules. I do not understand how we can possibly run a 25 to 30-year contract on an annual and cash-limited budget; it just cannot be done. It produces incentives to do stupid things. We have seen that with HS2. He also mentioned the very strong part that the EU played in the previous round of procuring ferries for the islands in his constituency. Yes, the Scottish Government have attracted, and probably deserve, criticism for their record on some of the ferry procurement that we have done in the past. Nobody gets it right all the time. Interestingly, the right hon. Member’s comment seems to show that the people who we were told were remote, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels could sometimes get closer to delivering what people in our communities wanted than the decision makers down here. Perhaps that is because the EU knew that it was sometimes remote, so it did not think that it knew what was best. Most of the funding programmes that it ran had to be managed by the Scottish Government, mostly in partnership with local authorities or other local organisations. Although not everybody agreed with every project that was approved, people could at least point to strong evidence that the project was born in the community and funded from elsewhere, rather than having been invented to fit a set of criteria that were often not relevant to the community in which the project was delivered.

[Mr Carmichael]

I bridle slightly at the hon. Gentleman’s use of “remote”. I am always being told that I live in a remote community, which means that I have to define the place I call home in relation to somewhere else. Surely the point is not about the distance between Brussels and the place where the projects were delivered; it is about understanding that the European Union enabled communities to do something for themselves. That is a very different model from the one in Edinburgh and London these days. Viewed from Shetland, both those places are pretty remote.

[Peter Grant]

I take the right hon. Member’s point. Let me clarify that I do not measure remoteness by how far people are from this place or anywhere else. It is arguable that parts of the right hon. Member’s constituency are more remote from each other than they need to be, because the infrastructure is not there, so a journey of a few miles can be a lot more difficult than it needs to be. The important point is that far too much infrastructure spending in Scotland is not done according to the priorities of the Scottish Government, local authorities, or the Scottish people. The fairy-tale vision of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), of a bridge to Ireland is a good example of that. I have not heard anybody in my constituency or elsewhere in Scotland say that that was a priority.

Too many funded schemes in Scotland are the priority of somebody in London who holds no mandate whatsoever in my constituency or anywhere else in Scotland. The criteria are set by somebody in London, sometimes having invited comments from the devolved nations or local authorities; most of the time, they ignore any comments that come in. The allocation of money does not have any rational basis, or follow any measure of need or priority. For example, the UK Government promised that the shared prosperity fund would fully replace the EU structural funding that Scotland lost after we were dragged out of the European Union against our will. Over three years, we expected to get about £549 million in structural funding; through the shared prosperity fund, we are getting £212 million. We are losing £337 million, more than half of what we would have had.

Other Government investment schemes, such as levelling up, were supposed to be based on a prioritisation of need, but somehow that prioritisation of need meant that the Prime Minister’s constituency got more than the whole of Glasgow. Of course, Glasgow got nothing. The Prime Minister’s constituency got exactly the same as mine, which is one of the most seriously deprived areas in the United Kingdom. The towns fund was the same. On the face of it, that fund was based on some kind of objective assessment of need, but everybody knows that it was more about who the sitting MP was, or which party hoped they might win the seat at the next election. The way that the criteria are set is not in the interests of the communities that the fund is supposed to serve. The funding allocation is not about need or what is right; it is about what suits the party of Government.

Almost 20 years ago, my very good friend and then fellow member of the council, Michael Woods, discovered that the then Labour administration in Fife Council had a secret plot to close the award-winning sports centre, the Fife sports institute in Glenrothes, and Kirkcaldy swimming pool. Thanks to Michael’s determination, that plan was abandoned. In 2007, Michael and I were both re-elected to the council, formed a joint administration with the Liberal Democrats, and immediately put in place plans to not demolish those two institutions, but replace them, and make them brand new. Six years after we were elected, we delivered a new sports centre in Glenrothes. Sadly, Michael did not live to see it happen, but the Michael Woods sports and leisure centre remembers that it would not be there had it not been for Michael. That is what can happen if we have the political leadership that knows what needs to be done, understands what communities need, and is prepared to deliver it. We had to devise a new delivery model to make the sports centre happen. I note the comment from the hon. Member for Wimbledon. If that delivery model had not worked, it would not have been the fault of the delivery model; it would have been our fault. It was our responsibility to set out a delivery mechanism that would work.

If we want to look at something on a bigger scale, in 2007, when the SNP was elected to the Scottish Government for the first time, it inherited a Forth Road bridge that was in danger of becoming unsafe and being closed. Some 10 years after, the SNP having inherited no plans whatsoever, the new Queensferry crossing was opened to the public. It was a £1.3 billion investment, let it be noted. The SNP did that without putting the albatross around their neck of a private finance initiative, and the crossing is toll-free, as are all the bridges, motorways and roads in Scotland.

Compare that with HS2. In 2009, the Government set their delivery company a budget of between £31 billion and £36 billion. By 2013, almost exactly 10 years ago, the National Audit Office was already warning about problems. We are now looking at a cost of somewhere between £72 billion and £98 billion. The cost of a single railway station at Euston has increased by £2.2 billion, and construction on that station has stopped for two years. How can one Government—or one series of Governments—get one project so catastrophically wrong so often, with no one being held to account?

Lack of accountability is a significant problem. We could ask what has happened to the 40 new hospitals; maybe some of them will happen, but there certainly will not be 40 of them. We seem to be living in a time when “a long-term investment strategy” means “to get us through the next election”. We are clearly living in a time when “priority areas of need” are marginal seats, and 40 new hospitals means, if we are lucky, half of that number—most of them will never be built. Partly due to covid and partly due to the self-inflicted damage of Brexit, construction project costs are rising, often faster than the official rate of inflation. Contractors and subcontractors are finding it harder and harder to recruit the skilled workers they need, because in that industry a lot of the skills are international. The market is global, and Britain is making itself a less attractive place for overseas workers to come to and work. That is not just because of Brexit, but because of how it has been seen to be implemented by the Government.

We need a complete change in the way that the Government allocate and manage the funding for their major infrastructure projects. The hon. Member for Bath was a fellow member of the Public Accounts Committee for a while; I have not seen any evidence, in the reports that come to the Committee, that lessons have been learned. I would love to be able to say that during my time on the Committee—or even in Parliament—I have seen evidence that this Government are becoming better at managing large-scale projects. I cannot say that; if anything, I would say that they are becoming worse.

We have a Government and a governing party that are becoming more inward looking, more concentrated on looking after their own interests, less willing to face up to the decisions that need to be taken, and, frankly, less caring about the impact on communities all over these islands of their failure to deliver the kind of infrastructure that a modern western democracy should be allowed to take for granted.

Draft Economic Crime (Anti-Money Laundering) Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 General Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Crime (Anti-money Laundering) Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.

The risk posed by economic crime is severe, and threatens the UK’s security, prosperity and resilience. Our openness and our status as a global financial centre is vital to our nation’s success. However, that great strength also exposes us to a range of economic crimes and to those who wish to harm UK businesses and individuals. In that context, there can be few objectives more critical than delivering a comprehensive response to economic crime.

That is especially important as we bear down on the Russian war machine in the wake of Putin’s illegal invasion of our ally, Ukraine. That is why the Government expedited the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which introduced key reforms to crack down on dirty money and hostile actors. We have gone further still by introducing the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which built on the earlier Act to bear down further on kleptocrats, criminals and terrorists.

The instrument we are considering today is the final step in implementing the economic crime (anti-money laundering) levy, which is a core component of the Government’s comprehensive and continuing response to economic crime. Announced at Budget 2020, the new levy aims to raise approximately £100 million a year to help ensure a sustainable funding model for action to tackle money laundering. The levy supplements approximately £200 million of additional Government investment to tackle economic crime over the 2021 spending review period. The funding will help to ensure a step change in our response by supporting the delivery of critical economic crime reforms, including commitments set out in the economic crime plan.

It is right that those sectors that give rise to money-laundering risk help contribute to countering that risk. That is why the levy will be paid by firms subject to the money laundering regulations only. I take this opportunity to thank the sector for their engagement throughout the levy-design process. The Government have worked closely with the industry and the levy collectors, including through policy and technical consultations. In doing so, we have ensured that the levy meets its objectives while aligning as far as possible with the core levy-design principles set out at consultation, including proportionality, predictability, simplicity and cost-effectiveness. The Government have delivered on those principles by ensuring proportionate levy fees, with no business expected to contribute more than a tenth of a per cent. of their UK revenue; by implementing a carve-out for businesses whose annual revenue falls below £10.2 million so that smaller businesses, who make up the vast majority of all those otherwise in scope, are exempt; and by aligning levy policy across the three collectors as far as possible, while adhering to existing collector processes in places for the sake of simplicity.

This instrument makes provisions for assessments and calculations of levy due, levy enforcement through financial penalties, information provision and record preservation obligations, overpayments, reviews and appeals. It has been designed with close regard to the core levy-design principles, including proportionality. It is my hope that stakeholders will welcome the clarity this instrument provides on remaining areas of levy policy and implementation. I assure the Committee that each levy collector will shortly publish information that outlines how in-scope entities should engage with these processes and pay the levy.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Could the Minister explain why all these amendments are being made now? Why were they not made when the original regulations were made last year?

[Andrew Griffith]

Last year’s Act was the primary legislation that enabled the levy. Subsequently, there has been extensive consultation with stakeholders about the way in which we should proceed with that levy. We are considering the detail of those procedures today.

In the consultation, stakeholders emphasised the importance of clarity and transparency throughout the development and implementation of the levy. The Government share that view, and that is one of the reasons why we are dealing with this in stages. We are committed to delivering annual reports on the operation of the levy, including a breakdown of how the levy is being spent, and a comprehensive review by the end of 2027.

The new levy represents an integral part of the Government’s comprehensive programme of work to ensure that economic crime finds no home in the United Kingdom, preserving this country’s security, resilience and prosperity. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

The SNP certainly supports these measures; our concern is that they could have been in place a lot sooner. In some cases, they possibly do not go far enough.

According to the note from the Select Committee on Statutory instruments, of which I am now a member, two of the amendments are required because of previous defective drafting. I am becoming increasingly concerned about how often we see SIs being revised and revised—in at least one case, revised for a third time—because the attempts to draft them accurately had not been successful. That is not a criticism of those who do the drafting; it is simply the environment that the Government have created for them, with potentially 4,000-plus SIs having to be revised before the end of this year. It is certainly not possible to get them all right, all the time. Sometimes, the consequences of getting the drafting wrong can be quite serious.

These regulations could have been brought forward, and would have been welcomed, a long time ago. In effect, on money laundering, as with a lot of other problems with financial crime, the Government are playing catch up. They have been asleep at the wheel for far too long; for far too long, Russian dirty money could flood into the United Kingdom. It was not exactly welcomed by those in positions of power, but they certainly did not do very much to try to prevent it. The Government are now choosing to do something about it. They could have chosen to do something about it in 2014, and perhaps Putin might not have felt quite as invincible as he clearly does now.

London is recognised by almost everyone as a global capital for fraud and other forms of financial crime, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn referred to. There is a lot in these regulations about a levy to combat money laundering. There are other forms of financial crime, particularly fraud against individual members of the public, which is now a billion-pound industry, and where we do not have the same arrangements to anything like the same extent. I would appreciate some kind of indication of when there will be a much more general compensation scheme for the innocent victims of investment fraud, pensions fraud and other forms of fraud, which are very much growing industries in Britain.

My final concern is not so much about the involvement of the Gambling Commission but about how effective it will be. Anybody who has looked at the problem of severe addictive gambling in the United Kingdom, which is becoming a health crisis almost as severe as covid, knows that that the Gambling Commission has proven to be absolutely toothless—whether because of a lack of interest, funding, resources or legislative powers—in its current main job, which is to regulate the industry and make sure it is not dragging people into problem gambling against their will. Will the Minister indicate what additional resources it will be given to ensure it is resourced for the additional responsibilities it will have through these regulations? Its resources, which are already inadequate for dealing with problem gambling, must not be spread even thinner because its members of staff have to administer additional levies.

The amendments to the regulations are about three times as long as the regulations themselves—always a sign that the regulations may have been either rushed through or not adequately thought about when they were first presented. I hope that neither I nor anybody else will have to be on a Delegated Legislation Committee in six to 12 months to agree further amendments to the regulations because we still have not got the drafting right. That is not a criticism of the people doing the drafting. They do a good job, but they are only human, and they have only 24 hours in a day and seven days in a week. They have been given far too much work and far too little time to complete it.

[Andrew Griffith]

I do not want to detain the Committee any longer than necessary, but I ought to respond to one or two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Glenrothes. I am slightly at a loss: are we moving too fast or too slowly? One person’s revised SI is another person’s reflection of consultation that results from listening to the industry and a desire to get things right. I accept that this was not his intent, but there was some implied criticism of the hard-working officials who are doing their best to reconcile the needs of transparency with this House and the desires of the sector.

[Peter Grant]

For clarification, the people drafting the legislation are having to do it at pace because they have been lumbered with 4,500 bits of legislation that they would not have had to revise were it not for the Government’s political dogma.

[Andrew Griffith]

We will let that matter rest. On one level, I share the hon. Gentleman’s desire for a smaller state and less legislation, but defending our country from money launderers is perhaps not the best place to start that deregulatory zeal. We can come back to that.

From his work on the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government are introducing measures to protect customers and the victims of push payment fraud, which is very concerning. The quicker that Bill completes its journey in the upper House, the quicker we can get it on the statute book. The £1 billion that he referred to concerns all of us on both sides of the House.

I am not aware of the Gambling Commission having expressed concern. It has been consulted throughout, and collecting levies is within its core purpose. I will of course be open to advisement on that. That is one of the reasons why a review is baked into the regulations. It is a piece of good, proportionate best practice that in 2027 there will be a formal review. I undertake today that the outcome of that review will be brought to the attention of the House.

It is always a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn. She raised the important work of Transparency International. Although this is the final piece of this particular set of economic crime legislation, it is of course not the whole of our anti-fraud strategy. My hon. Friend the Security Minister has told the House that that will come to this place very shortly. I ask all parties to look at that and consider the strategy in the round, together with the Government’s anti-fraud strategy.

The hon. Lady asked me to publish how the levy will be used. Of course, the point of the levy is to build a fund to enhance the overall level of resources available to crime fighters. That could be for a range of purposes, including more intelligence, better reporting infrastructure and more personnel devoted to this area. It will only be in due course that we are able to see where that money is spent. I undertake to the Committee that we will publish an annual report on how the levy is spent. The hon. Lady is right that it should attract proper scrutiny. As she understands, it is only one part of the resources available to our police, anti-fraud initiatives and crime fighters.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank my hon. Friend for the inimitable way in which he asked his question. I hope that he was reassured to some extent by the £9 billion cut in the planned level of corporation tax in the Budget, and, if we make the arrangement for capital allowances permanent, as I should like to, that will give us the best investment incentives anywhere in the OECD.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

May I be the first to defend the Chancellor, and indeed the shadow Chancellor, against any accusation of socialism?

Can the Chancellor explain why the Cameronbridge distillery in my constituency, which is a major employer in an area of high unemployment, faces an increase of about £350 million in its excise tax bill this year? That is more than the additional amount that the Chancellor claims to be giving to the whole of Scotland. Will he explain why my constituents, and the companies that employ my constituents, are having to contribute additional taxes to pay for his economic failure?

[Jeremy Hunt]

Let me gently say to the hon. Member that the freeze in alcohol duty which we introduced in the autumn of 2021, and which will continue until August this year, has constituted a £2.7 billion tax cut over four years. We do everything we can to help the vital Scottish whisky industry.