Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for her excellent maiden speech. She spoke movingly and touchingly about her father and about dementia, and it is a theme that we must come back to in this House. It is really profound. I also share her admiration for Nigel Mills, who was an excellent predecessor, and she was very magnanimous in her comments about him. I will be sure to see her in the Tea Room to hear more about Derbyshire. Hopefully, she will not be dictating that I drink a Mojito, because I cannot bear them.

I understand that the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill is being steered through the House by the Treasury—quite right too—but I think it would be worth my saying at the outset why the Bill is a positive development in security, defence and foreign affairs.

In December 2021, amid the build-up of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin wrote two letters. He wrote one to the United States and one to NATO. His demands included a Russian veto on NATO membership for Ukraine and the implied removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of multinational NATO battalions from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. That would have been completely and utterly unacceptable, and we can only surmise why he might have wanted NATO to act in this way. It is because once ground is taken it is that much harder to take back. Offence is so much more costly than defence.

It is to the issue of costs that we must now turn. The purpose of the Bill is to support the $50 billion G7 initiative launched in June, which represented a co-ordinated effort by the G7 and the EU to support Ukraine. However, with Hungary potentially blocking concerted EU action, I welcome the provision in the Bill that will ensure that future financial assistance extends to any changes in subsequent arrangements, in case we can reach broader consensus later. It is crucial that we collaborate with our EU partners to swiftly advance the agreement.

The Minister talked about the UK being a first mover in this space, which is very welcome, although states such as Estonia, Finland and Czechia worked on it prior to us, and Canada has been a driver of it too. The UK’s £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 arrangement reflects our GDP share, but as a leader in supporting Ukraine, I feel we need to go beyond simply a proportional share. After all, doing so could provide support for Ukraine in place of some taxpayers’ money. It is welcome that the UK is contributing £3 billion annually, and the Government have pledged to maintain that for as long as it takes, but as Zelensky said, why should western taxpayers foot the bill when frozen Russian assets could be confiscated and given for use by Ukraine? The Bill is a positive step, but we should talk about not just future profits generated from frozen Russian assets, but the principle—the assets themselves. The approach set out today uses only a fraction of the $300 billion available, much of which is held at Euroclear central securities depository. To support Ukraine effectively, we must go further. We should repurpose all these assets—not just the profits, but the principle.

Some critics argue that confiscating the funds would pose legal risks. They talk about sovereign immunity—an argument that is also used by some who oppose the prosecution of leaders for the crime of aggression—but sovereign immunity should also apply when thinking about the sovereignty of states. Legally, we have to think about how Russia violated international law. It violated the UN charter and blatantly breached the charter’s principle of state sovereignty. It is estimated that Russia has already caused £400 billion worth of damage—that is what will be required to rebuild Ukraine—and Russia will ultimately have to pay to make good that damage, but what use will the frozen assets be to Ukraine if Ukraine no longer exists? The goal cannot be only to rebuild Ukraine from the rubble, but to help Ukrainians prevent their country from turning to ash.

Some argue that confiscating the assets could destabilise global markets, or deter other nations from holding reserves in western financial institutions in the future, but those fears are overstated, and need to be weighed against the risk of doing nothing. The dominance of western financial systems remains robust. Alternatives such as China’s renminbi lack the stability and scale of the US dollar. Cryptocurrencies are too volatile to be a viable alternative, so the risk of inaction should be thought of in terms of what has happened in global markets since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. There was a very wobbly period, including here in the UK with the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which was partly about supporting people with their energy bills. At the time, the Government felt that they had to provide such support because of the rise in the price of gas caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Again, we cannot just suppose that doing nothing will have no consequences. There are concerns that confiscation could reduce our leverage in future peace negotiations, but this war first needs to be won. This is not the Gulf war in 1991 when frozen assets were used to compensate Kuwait; this war is still not determined.

Other states considering investing in western institutions have nothing to fear if they have no intention of invading their neighbours. As things stand, Russia has shown little interest in meaningful dialogue. To simply wait and keep the assets as a negotiating tool is naive and defeatist. By repurposing the assets now, we not only support Ukraine’s immediate needs, but reinforce the principle that aggression must not pay and that nuclear sabre-rattling is completely unacceptable.

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), said, the geopolitical context underscores the urgency of the moment. Trump commented in March that he sees US isolationism as attractive. When talking to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) on GB News, he said,

“We have an ocean in between some problems… a nice big, beautiful ocean.”

With the United States facing questions about whether its support for Ukraine could be reduced or even diminish, we need to think further about what more we can do with our European allies. Acting now to unlock the full potential of Russian assets would provide Ukraine with a financial lifeline insulating it from shifts in political will elsewhere in the world.

The Bill highlights the importance of collaboration with our European partners. As the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), pointed out, UK taxpayers have already contributed over £12 billion in aid to Ukraine since February 2022, but our absence from EU defence frameworks limits our ability to co-ordinate effectively with those European allies. We could use some of the confiscated frozen assets to support joint procurement, perhaps associating with some of the frameworks, such as the European Defence Agency. Shared management of those confiscated funds would ensure transparency, accountability and maximum impact. The future profit funds, suggested as a base for the Bill, are scheduled to be disbursed between December 2024 and 2027. That timeline does not match the urgency of Ukraine’s need.

Just last weekend, we saw Russia’s largest attack on Ukrainian infrastructure in months. Russia launched 120 missiles and 90 drones. Three weeks ago, the Finnish Government took a bold step by confiscating $4.5 billion in Russian assets, making Finland one of the first countries to take decisive action. The Finnish confiscation must surely be hitting Russia where it hurts, and we should follow the examples set by Finland, Czechia and Estonia, working together to confiscate those Russian assets—including the principal, not just the interest.

The stakes could not be higher: Ukraine’s fight is a fight for eastern Europe and the west more broadly. It is a fight for the principles of democracy, sovereignty and international law that underpin global peace and security. I welcome the Bill, but it is vital that the provisions align with the goal of confiscating all Russian assets to support Ukraine financially. Let us rise to the challenge, demonstrate solidarity with Ukraine, and show leadership on the global stage and unwavering friendship to our European allies. By collaborating with those European allies to confiscate Russian assets, we can help pave the way for an outcome that makes it plain to any Government who are watching that aggression does not pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on what remains a very important and pressing issue. As Ukraine enters yet another difficult winter, I am proud of the consistent support that this Government have shown through not just our £2.26 billion ERA contribution, but the long-term commitments we have made to supporting Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence.

I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, along with my hon. Friends the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) in saying how proud I am that there is unity across the House in standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at this very difficult time. This is a complex issue, and I will try to answer the questions posed by the Opposition and my hon. Friends. If I have missed out anything, I am happy to write to Members.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of the Bill, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for making such a powerful maiden speech. I think I am right in saying that her late mother Margaret, David, Martin and all her children would be extremely proud of their extraordinary daughter, mother, stepmother and wife. I very much welcome this “vicious dictator” to the House. We need more of them in the women’s parliamentary Labour party, so I am pleased to have her here.

The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire asked about the timing of the release of the funds. We intend to begin spending the funds early next year to ensure that the funding supports our Ukrainian allies as soon as possible. We intend to do so in three equal tranches over three financial years, starting in 2024-25, and the G7 has agreed that all ERA funds will be given out by the end of 2027. He also asked about how the UK will be repaid. We are providing the funding as part of the wider G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loan initiative, which means that the UK will be repaid via the extraordinary profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU. The EU has already enacted the necessary regulations to operationalise the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, which will distribute the profits. That came into effect on 29 October, as he is probably aware.

The hon. Member asked about what will happen to the UK if the loan is not repaid. The repayment will rely on profits continuing to flow from immobilised RSAs into the EU over multiple years. The UK and the wider G7 have committed to ensuring that Russian sovereign assets remain immobilised across our jurisdictions until Russia ceases its war of aggression and pays for the damage that it has caused to Ukraine, and G7 lenders have worked closely together to design the ERA in a way that allows for repayment in a scenario in which profits cease and Russia pays Ukraine. I hope that answers his question, but I can write to him if he wants more detail.

On NATO’s spending target, there is a clear commitment from the Government to spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence, which has categorically not changed. The hon. Member will have seen in our manifesto that we will set up a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and this will be done at a future fiscal event.

The hon. Member asked about the total value of assets and private assets. Between February 2022 and October 2023, £22.7 billion-worth of Russian assets were frozen due to UK financial sanctions regulations—a marked increase on the figure of £18.39 billion that was provided in the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s annual report in 2021-22. OFSI is currently analysing data on immobilised assets, and on the type and value of the assets.

Like many Members, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked about the involvement of the ERA in asset seizure. I have to make it clear that the G7’s ERA scheme does not represent the seizure of Russian sovereign assets in any way; it is about using the extraordinary profits that the EU has set aside to pay a series of loans to Ukraine. He and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked about seizing Russian sovereign assets in the UK. Russia’s obligation under international law is clear: it must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The G7 agreement to use the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets for the loan is an important step towards ensuring that Russia pays. Although we continue to consider all lawful avenues by which Russia is made to meet its obligation to Ukraine under international law, it is important that the UK and the G7 remain focused on delivering the ERA and the benefit that it will give to Ukraine right now, because we are very conscious of the situation in which the country finds itself.

A few other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), asked about the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC. The Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend might know that the proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money, but this is something that we are working on and we are trying to move it along as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) asked whether this was an unlimited resource loan. The negotiations remain ongoing on the details of the loan terms, but I am focused on ensuring that there is limited impact on Ukraine’s balance sheet. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) talked about the implications of the Trump victory for Ukraine. I cannot speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump may make, but we have welcomed bipartisan US support for Ukraine, which has been key in the international effort. I feel that Ukraine’s security is vital for global security. If there are any other questions that I have not answered, I will write to Members. I am conscious of the time and I want to finish by thanking hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions to the debate.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard her say that at this stage the Government intend to work on the profits rather than the seized assets themselves, but will she undertake to talk to ministerial colleagues in Finland, Czechia and Estonia to find out how they have gone about seizing and using confiscated assets?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially with regard to other countries, and I am happy to have conversations with ministerial colleagues across different countries and find out what they are doing. This is our position for now, but this is an ongoing situation and things will move. I am happy to speak to Ministers from different countries who are using assets differently.

The ERA is an innovative scheme. It will ensure that Ukraine receives vital support throughout 2025 and beyond. It will take the money generated from Russian sovereign assets and use it to support Ukraine in the best possible way. This is further proof for us that the G7’s support for Ukraine will not falter, and that the UK will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in thanking the people of our country for all the support that they have shown Ukraine. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me for one minute while I say that my own constituents of Hampstead and Highgate have opened their doors for Ukrainian refugees, giving them their homes, community spaces and education spaces, and I particularly pay tribute to my local synagogue, South Hampstead synagogue, which is providing free English lessons for Ukrainian refugees. I was very pleased to meet those people in Parliament last week.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Treasury or Secretary of State for the purpose of providing loans or other financial assistance to, or for the benefit of, the government of Ukraine as a result of—

(a) the arrangements described as the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans for Ukraine announced on 14 June 2024 at the G7 summit in Apulia in Italy, or

(b) any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace those arrangements.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Ordered,

That Marie Goldman, Leigh Ingham, Gordon McKee, Charlotte Nichols and Jesse Norman be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—(Lucy Powell.)

House of Commons Members’ Fund

Ordered,

That Holly Lynch, Sir Charles Walker and Peter Grant be removed as Trustees of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Mark Tami, Chris Elmore and Dr Danny Chambers be appointed as Trustees in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016.—(Lucy Powell.)

VAT: Independent Schools

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman is repeating the lines that the Whips gave him for this morning’s Westminster Hall debate. I was not talking about SEND. It is deeply discourteous to the House to intervene on a Member with a point that is completely separate from the point that they are making; he will come to learn that in time.

As I said, the entire county of Rutland has zero available state school places for years 10 and 11. That means children will now not be able to get their education. I ask the Minister directly: what would he say to 16-year-olds who are to be forced out of their school in January with no alternative place to go and nowhere to do their studies? This is a vindictive policy, and it is absolutely wrong.

I want to touch on the contribution to local rural economies. In Rutland, education is the biggest single employer. As I said, we have 10 schools across 11 sites. In 2022-23, one secondary school in Rutland and Stamford contributed £50 million to UK GDP. It contributed £30 million to local GDP, £14 million was paid in tax to HMRC, and savings of £5.5 million were made to local schools through school places that were not taken. Some 70% of this school’s expenditure is on staffing and, with the imposition of VAT, it is forecast to make a loss for the first time ever. Jobs are being lost. When 70% of the budget is staffing, what does a school do? Cuts have to be made in people’s jobs. More than 2,000 people locally are employed directly by independent schools, and that is not to mention those working in the supply chain, whether driving buses, providing food or flowers, or working in cafés and shops. Rural economies do not have many options at the moment, and independent schools are a bedrock for them. The economic impact of these jobs on rural communities should be considered in an impact assessment, but I very much doubt one has been carried out.

Looking at the national economic picture, the Adam Smith Institute concluded that every child in independent schooling contributes £28,000 to the public finances. The average £2,700 saved on VAT makes a return to the taxpayer of 1,040%. If 5% of independent school pupils leave, the Government will generate £1 billion through this policy. If 10% to 15% of pupils leave, the Government will generate no revenue. If 25% of pupils leave, the Government will lose £1.58 billion, because they are doing something vindictive and wrong.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that people putting their children through independent school are paying twice? They pay once through their fees and once through income tax. If they are removed from the system, that will mean less money for education.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. These parents have already paid into the state school system as if their child were going to state school, and they are net contributors to the local education system and the tax system, because they have chosen to ease the pressures on state schools by taking their child out. This is basic economics, and that is why the Government do not understand it.

Independent schools make a huge and optional contribution to the national teachers’ pension scheme. Some could choose to mitigate their increased costs from the imposition of VAT by opting out of the TPS. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that this would have on the financial viability of the TPS?

Additionally, a number of independent schools in my constituency provide homes for children in foster care who would otherwise have no stability. These are the kind of schemes they will have to stop. That will again result in increased costs and impact on the state sector, which will have to pick these things up.

It is a long-standing international norm to exempt education from sales taxes. Nurseries, universities, tutors and other education providers are not included in Labour’s proposed VAT increase, although as per my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), there is a toddler tax, which any parent with a five-year-old child in nursery school will suddenly find themselves paying. It is ironic that the Labour party says that it believes in free university education for all, yet many who take up apprenticeships or go into work will not go to university. Why does Labour think that all of us who do not go to university should pay for other people to go to university, but somehow, when it comes to this issue, we should pay for others?

There is also a question about the legality. Senior lawyers, including Lord Pannick, have argued that this proposal will breach European convention on human rights rules on educational choice and access. What assessment have the Government made of the legality of this policy?

I am already seeing the damage of this policy in the heartbreaking dilemmas facing families who have contacted me for help. For some pupils halfway through their exam years, there are no places in the state system. The requests are clear: the Government must delay the implementation until at least the end of this school year, so that children are not disrupted in their education. We need to exempt those pupils in years 10 to 13, so they can take their exams without the added pressure of a school move. We need to help local authorities to boost EHCP assessments rapidly, and we need to undertake a regional assessment of available state school places to exempt pupils who live in areas with no availability, such as Rutland.

I understand that the Labour party wants to make an ideological attack on education and choice, but I urge Ministers to sit down and think this through. The richest will continue to attend private schools and absorb the increased costs, while families who sacrifice day after day will suffer. For those who are interested, I did go to my local comprehensive, and my children go to their local comprehensive, but I think it is right that we support choice for all. Tony Blair once said, “Education, education, education.” I urge the Minister to listen to the ghosts of Labour past and to do what is right for all children at both state and private schools, not what is right for reasons of ideological dogma, which is what the Labour party is currently doing day after day.

Budget Resolutions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

With four days to spend debating one single fiscal event, it would be easy to enter into Westminster village debates. Instead, ahead of the Budget I spent several days knocking on doors in villages in my Devon constituency to hear what rural residents wanted the Chancellor to announce. The feedback I got was plain: they cared not about jibes from the Dispatch Box but about saving our public services and infrastructure, including our roads, which are crumbling before our very eyes—a metaphor for public services in general. It is little wonder that people ask me, “If this Government cannot even stop the roads from falling apart, how on earth can they claim that things are getting better?” It is little wonder that the erosion of our roads has been mirrored by the electoral erosion of the Conservative party. Many of the people I spoke to in Devon regard this Government as having little left in the tank. It is little wonder that conspiracy theories are on the rise: people in the west country could be forgiven for thinking that potholes are a deliberate, affordable alternative to 20 mph signs and speed bumps.

This Budget was such a disappointment. There are more holes in it than in the A373 between Honiton and Cullompton. It contained little in the way of support for frontline NHS and care services. It is ironic that when national insurance was introduced by a Liberal Government in 1911, its purpose was partly as a safety net to catch people experiencing ill health. The Liberal Government who introduced it required contributions from employers and the state, as well as the individual.

The Chancellor’s flagship measure—the national insurance cut—failed to deliver any help for pensioners or those on fixed incomes in the way that a rise in the income tax threshold could have done. Instead of long-term investment, the Government chose a series of quick patch-up jobs that brush over the latest crisis, rather than taking the time to fill in their holes properly. The Government need to understand that funnelling every last available penny they could scrape together into a national insurance cut will not turn things around.

The average pothole-related breakdown will set drivers back around £440. That is the same amount that someone might have got back from this national insurance cut. One trip down a poorly maintained road and all those savings are gone in a bang, as the driver shreds a tyre on the edge of a crater. I am reminded of driving through the streets of former Yugoslavia in an Army Land Rover 20 years ago, where avoiding a collision in Kosovo required a Land Rover Defender; increasingly, it is also a requirement in Culmstock, Colyton and Combe Raleigh.

If small businesses are the engines of our local economy, investment in our road network is the lubricant in rural areas such as Devon. The roads are the ribbons that connect our towns and villages. In recent years, many have become impassable. Almost every single week, my postbag is flooded with correspondence about potholes. I fear that if I were to plot them on a map, those reported across mid and east Devon would hardly leave any road left. They are certainly one of the things that people are most annoyed about. That is why the £6.6 million announced for Devon’s roads is nothing more than a smokescreen. It goes nowhere near what is genuinely required to fix the underlying problem.

It is not just me saying that. The Conservative leader of Devon County Council, John Hart, who is ultimately responsible for the maintenance of our roads in Devon, says the funding is a “drop in the ocean”. He went on to say that while the council was given an extra £9.5 million for roads last year, £7 million of that repair money was immediately eaten up by inflation. Last April, the council was forced to announce that it only had the capacity to maintain priority roads, allowing other vital roads to endure a “managed decline”. This is a shameful state of affairs. It says something when getting on a horse and riding over the rolling hills of Devon may be the best way of traversing our county for the first time in over 100 years. Figures from the Department for Transport lay the issue bare—these statistics just cannot be argued with. Just 18.6 miles of roads in Devon had improvement work done in the year to March 2023, down from 273.6 miles five years ago, all under the Conservatives’ watch.

The Budget was a missed opportunity. The Government know that they have lost the race and are now simply limping to the finish line. The people of Devon deserve so much better. They demand better. They know that, in the rural areas of the west country, the only way to get it is to vote Liberal Democrat.

UK Economy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I will not repeat everything I just said to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), but this Government and this Treasury are sticking to our plan for growth. That is all put at risk by the Labour party.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

The Office for Budget Responsibility assessed Boris Johnson’s trade and co-operation agreement, which sets out the trading relationship between the UK and the EU, at the beginning of last year, and it said that the TCA has reduced long-run productivity by 4%. Why does the Minister think that is?

[Bim Afolami]

We built on the trade and co-operation agreement through the Windsor framework, and the Opposition do not propose to change it. Indeed, the TCA is fundamental to the stability of our relationship with the European Union, and I do not think the country would benefit from unpicking it once again.

Hospitality Sector: Fiscal Support

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fiscal support for the hospitality sector.

We always say that it is a pleasure to see you in your place, Ms Bardell, and it is this morning; thank you for looking after us. I thank colleagues from all points of the compass for their support on a subject that is close to my heart: fiscal and other support for the hospitality sector—by which I mean on-trade pubs, restaurants, cafés, hotels, and bed and breakfasts. I am grateful to the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, the Scottish and UK hospitality organisations, Castle Leisure Group, Greene King, and several dozen businesses in rural and urban Stirlingshire for helping me to prepare for the debate. I also thank Paul Anderson and Matt Gower from my office, as well as the House of Commons Library, which has produced a number of useful briefings that I commend to colleagues.

This issue is not easy, but I will be up front with colleagues. Am I looking for special treatment for the hospitality sector? Yes, I am: these businesses need and deserve it. They need it because of the unprecedented economic times that we are living through, and they deserve it because they are a part of not just our economy, but our society; they are community hubs at a time when we face an epidemic of post-covid loneliness, and they contribute to our sense of place and keep our high streets busy. As well as urban Stirling, I represent a number of rural communities, which turn into dormitories once the pub goes. That is not a sustainable future for those communities. Hospitality businesses promote social mobility. How many of us—myself included—had a first job waiting tables, pulling pints or doing dishes? Hospitality provides flexible employment that keeps a lot of people engaged in the workplace who might otherwise not find jobs that suit them. These are good, sustainable jobs, and great careers.

Hospitality businesses are also significant for the economy. The stats are vital: the beer and pub sector accounts for 936,000 jobs and contributes £26 billion to the UK economy; in Scotland, it accounts for 62,000 jobs and £1.8 billion in tax receipts. According to UKHospitality, the wider hospitality sector employs 3.5 million people in one form or another, and generates £54 billion in tax receipts. These businesses are at the sharp end of an economic crisis that is not of their making. They are at the sharp end of the post-covid slump, an energy cost spike and insurance cost rises. They face labour shortages and costs due to Brexit. Now, I do not blame Brexit for everything, but it has made everything worse, and we need to deal with its consequences, which hospitality businesses are living with right now. They also have lower footfall, because in the cost of living crisis everybody is cutting back on discretionary spend. They are dealing with a perfect storm, and they need more help.

During covid, we proved that we can act fast, as we did with the VAT cut and eat out to help out, with all its issues; we demonstrated that we could move fast when a demonstrated emergency was under way. For our hospitality businesses, there is still an emergency under way. I am supportive of the Scottish Government, although I am not part of it; I am clearly in opposition here, though I hope I am a constructive Opposition Member. I am bringing some ideas to the Minister, and look forward to his response. I am also not a part of Stirling Council. I am aware that budgets in all places are under real pressure, but I am calling for support because I am dread afeard that, unless we act, a number of these good, sustainable businesses will not make it through to the better times, when they do come, and that all those revenues and social benefits will be lost. Across my constituency, there are a number of great businesses, but they need help to make it through. It is up to all of us, in all our places, to put the badges to one side and work together to support these crucial organisations.

What am I calling for? I will be brief to allow colleagues to speak. First, if hon. Members remember only two words from me today, they should be “cut VAT.” I would cut VAT on food, soft drinks and alcohol to 5%. Of course, that is a big ask. I know the fiscal situation for the UK, Scotland and local government, but cutting VAT would be a clean and immediately effective way of supporting those businesses’ bottom line. It would be directly linked to turnover, so if a business is not doing much business, it will not get that much benefit, and if it is, it will. It would not require any complex architecture or bureaucracy and would not need much to administer. It would be an effective way to boost growth and help these businesses survive.

In other countries, a VAT cut would not be unusual. VAT on accommodation is 10% in Austria, 6% in Belgium and 9% in Cyprus. VAT on restaurants is 13% in Croatia, 5% in Hungary and 10% in Italy. Of course, it is not quite like for like, but the UK is taxing this sector far more than other European countries do, and I think we need to boost and celebrate it, not tax the bejesus out of it from all parts of Government.

Speaking of which, we need business rates reform. To be clear, I was glad that the UK Government temporarily cut business rates in England. I called for the Scottish Government to pass that on, and I regret that they did not, but let us remember that it was just a one-year suspension and the actual problem is that business rates are not fit for purpose in any of our countries. That outdated system is creating perverse incentives for a lot of good businesses. Of course, local government needs to be supported, but we need to find a better way to do that. Tom Arthur, the Scottish Minister, has been proactive in engaging with business across Stirling and elsewhere. He acknowledges the problem—but business rates are crippling a lot of businesses, and we need urgent reform in all our countries.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point about business rates reform. I have just pulled up the Midweek Herald, in which a pub that closed fairly recently, the Honiton Inn, is advertised at £395,000, but before the advert says anything about the pub, it says, “Business rates may apply”. Does he agree that business rates on pubs are deterring new tenants from taking over?

Bank Profits: Windfall Tax

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Member makes an important point. The example he gives of the closure of so many high-street banks, which disadvantages people in my community as well as in rural communities, just goes to show that the banks’ huge increase in profits has not been achieved through delivering a better service to consumers at all. Higher interest rates have not been passed on to savers; they have been hoarded by the banks, creating a windfall for them of many billions for doing nothing productive.

Such a transfer from the public to banks would be unjustifiable at any time, but it is especially so when so many people are struggling to cover the essentials and our public services are on their knees due to Tory cuts. The banks should face the same type of tax on their unearned and underserved windfalls as the energy companies.

The pre-tax profits of the big four banks—Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC and NatWest—show why that would be a just tax. In the first nine months of 2023, they made a staggering £41 billion in pre-tax profits, which is almost double the £23 billion they made in the same period last year, according to research by Unite the union. The question we must answer is this: will we allow the Government to claim that more austerity and cuts are inevitable and that public investment is unaffordable, or are we to build a better tax system that focuses on making the wealthiest pay their fair share?

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

On that point about a better tax system, my understanding is that business likes certainty and that banks, like businesses, need to be able to predict the future fiscal regime, but earlier this year this Conservative Government cut the bank surcharge from 8% to 3%. So rather than a one-off windfall tax, would it not be better to reinstate the bank surcharge at 2016 levels, reinstate the bank levy at its previous rate from earlier this year and so have an additional £18 billion for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs between now and 2027?

[Richard Burgon]

The hon. Member makes a valuable intervention. I will come to how it was unjustifiable for the Government to reduce the surcharge in that way. Both approaches are possible and desirable, with yes, a windfall tax, but also reversing that cut.

If we build a fairer, better tax system that focuses on making the wealthiest pay their fair share, we can invest in rebuilding the economy so that it serves the majority of people, we can invest in renewing our public services, and we can give people back some hope. A windfall tax on unexpected and undeserved bank profits can play an important role in creating that fairer tax system. Banks are not reinvesting their profits in the economy; they are handing out huge pay and bonuses, which could go even higher, aided and abetted by the Government’s decision to scrap the bonus cap.

That all comes at a time when the banks are turning their backs on local communities. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, bank branches have been disappearing from our high streets at an alarming rate. Since 2015, almost 6,000 branches have permanently closed their doors. At a time of deepening social crisis, while banks collect record profits, they have made it even more difficult for working people to access their finances and get financial advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate. He is an assiduous attender in the House, he cares a lot about these issues and I respect him deeply. In particular, I love his conversion, like that of his very good friend the Leader of the Opposition, to quoting and loving Margaret Thatcher. I cannot wait to hear the reports of how that goes down when he visits his local Labour party at the end of the week.

I am pleased that this debate provides me with an opportunity to set out the measures that the Government have already taken to ensure that banks make a fair and sustainable tax contribution, but before I get on to that, I cannot resist dealing with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the economic context in which this country finds itself. He mentioned economic growth. It is important that he recognises that when they assessed the autumn statement that the Chancellor recently delivered to the House, the Office for Budget Responsibility and independent forecasters said that the pro-growth measures it contained represented the largest boost to economic growth over the forecast period of any fiscal event in a generation.

I think the hon. Gentleman said that austerity and public sector cuts were somehow inevitable, and that somehow the Treasury, Chancellor and Government felt that that was a good thing. We completely reject that characterisation. All I would say is that borrowing an extra £28 billion, as proposed by his Front-Bench team and the shadow Chancellor—I do not know whether it is the hon. Gentleman’s idea or proposal—will end up raising inflation and raising interest rates, which is what makes austerity and cuts more likely.

Let me deal with the real substance of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on the banks and a windfall tax. First, it is important to highlight that financial and related professional services are a vital part of the UK economy. They employ nearly 2.5 million people, two thirds of them outside London. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has many members of Leeds’ thriving financial and professional services sector in his constituency.

As I laid out to TheCityUK’s national conference earlier this month, I am committed to delivering the Chancellor’s vision for a financial services sector that is open, sustainable, innovative and competitive, while also acting—this is very important—in the interests of communities, people and citizens all across our four nations. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider my view and the Government’s view that such ambitions do not contradict each other; rather, it is the UK’s globally competitive financial services sector that supports jobs throughout this country and underpins access to finance—for individuals if they want to buy a home, for households, for businesses that need to borrow to expand and invest, and for consumers throughout the country.

Before we consider the potential merits of a bank windfall tax, I want to reflect on some of the bigger picture in respect of the health of the UK banking sector as a whole. We should be encouraged to see a strong, well-capitalised and competitive banking sector in the UK, in no small part owing to the significant regulatory and market reforms that have been implemented since the global financial crisis. Banks are the most important source of credit, providing individuals and businesses with the financial resources to succeed. For example, in 2022 banks lent a total of £65.1 billion to small and medium-sized businesses, which make up the majority of businesses in our country, and helped 370,000 first-time buyers on to the property ladder. That illustrates that these institutions are not in the pockets of fat cats; they serve the nation. They serve ordinary working people and early-stage entrepreneurs and businesspeople.

In addition, the retail savings market currently offers a range of competitive options to savers, who can now access the highest rates in recent years on a variety of instant-access and fixed-term products. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Leeds East brought up the issue of bank branches, and I share their view that we need to maintain access to cash for rural communities. Indeed, the hon. Member for Leeds East will see from me and this Government that we believe we should speed up and spread banking hubs throughout as many of our communities as possible.

[Richard Foord]

I opened one of those banking hubs a fortnight ago in Axminster. I agree with the Minister that it is fantastic to see those facilities and I know my constituents are very grateful. When will we see the opening of the next tranche, such as a banking hub for Sidmouth?

[Bim Afolami]

This is a rolling programme. We are trying to speed it up and in due course there will, of course, be changes and updates to it.

It is equally important that banks make an equitable and sustainable tax contribution, and the Government have taken significant steps since 2010 to ensure that. First, as the hon. Member for Leeds East knows, we introduced the bank levy in the wake of the financial crisis. It was designed to encourage banks to move away from risky funding models and ensure that they make a fair contribution. The levy has raised vital revenue to help fund the public services we all rely on—over £28 billion so far—and, long after the financial crisis, it continues to bring in over £1 billion a year.

Secondly, in 2016 we introduced the bank corporation tax surcharge. Banks currently pay an additional 3% rate of tax on their profits, which, when combined with standard corporation tax, means that banks pay more tax on their profits—we would not know it from the hon. Gentleman’s speech—than most other businesses, and a higher overall rate than when the surcharge was at 8%. The surcharge has raised over £13 billion and continues to bring in over £1.3 billion a year. We have also taken action to prevent banks from claiming tax relief on losses incurred during the financial crisis or on compensation payments for payment protection insurance and other cases of misconduct.

This money is the public’s money. These measures help to support the needs and ambitions of our country’s citizens when it is appropriate for the state to do so. I know that that is why the hon. Gentleman is so keen to see a windfall tax introduced. I share his concern for supporting the interests of his fellow citizens, but the measures I have outlined demonstrate how the Government already ensure that banks make a fair and sustainable tax contribution.

Having outlined how our current approach has generated significant tax revenue for the UK, I want to conclude by turning to how deviating from the approach I have set out—for example, by adopting a windfall tax as the hon. Gentleman suggests—would carry significant risk for the health and competitiveness of our banking sector, which in and of itself would be a significant risk for the health and competitiveness of our economy.

A jurisdiction’s overall tax burden clearly informs decisions made by internationally active banks about where to operate. It is also clear that other international financial centres, which are our competitors, recognise that too. I want to be very clear that a higher level of bank taxation in the UK would significantly worsen our competitive position in relation to key global financial hubs in the US, Asia and Europe. It would have a threefold negative impact. First, it would put existing jobs at risk. Secondly, it would damage the chances of future jobs being created through new activity being set up. Finally, rather than raising significant yield for the Exchequer, I fear that it would have the opposite effect; it would jeopardise the considerable tax revenue that is already generated by the banking sector.

The banking sector’s contribution to the UK’s economy should not be underestimated. The amount of tax paid by banks is rightly proportionate to that contribution. Let me be clear: the Government still maintain that the sector should continue to make a fair and sustainable tax contribution. We have taken steps since 2010 to ensure that. It is no contradiction to say that we need a strong and competitive banking sector that supports individuals, households and businesses, because that has foundational importance to our economy.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

1. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of maintaining the pensions triple lock on the economy.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Laura Trott)]

As a result of the Government’s triple lock, the basic state pension is now more than 50% higher in cash terms than it was in 2011. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is undertaking his review at the moment, and I cannot pre-empt that.

[Richard Foord]

Now that Lord Cameron has returned to the Cabinet, it is probably a good time for us to remember that the pensions triple lock was a Liberal Democrat initiative. The 2010 Liberal Democrat manifesto said:

“We will uprate the state pension annually by whichever is the higher of growth in earnings, growth in prices or 2.5 per cent.”

Given that the triple lock has now been operational for more than a decade, will the Chancellor and his team commit to putting the triple lock in the next manifesto?

[Laura Trott]

Nice try. The triple lock was a Conservative invention, delivered by the Conservatives, and it is something to which we remain committed.

Local Bank Branch Closures

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Amy Callaghan]

I will answer the hon. Member’s question in a second, but it is certainly not rhetoric to say that the Tory Government have not stepped up anywhere near enough to support our communities and people who are struggling through the cost of living crisis. We need local bank branches. Hubs are an alternative, though they are not good enough, but I welcome his point of view.

We would be lucky to have as many bank branches open in our constituencies as have closed in the recent years. At least 265 local branches are set to close this year alone, and 62 parliamentary constituencies are down to one or no local banks. The UK has lost over half its bank network since 2015, which speaks volumes after 13 years of Tory rule. How many more banks do we have to lose before the Minister kicks into gear?

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

On the point about having lost over half the banks in the UK since 2015, I would like to go over the figures. Does the hon. Lady recognise that over 5,700 branches have closed since 2015 or are set to close, leaving only 4,000, at a time when banks are pulling in record profits?

[Amy Callaghan]

What is most despicable about this situation is that banks have record profits, but are not investing them in our communities. Our constituents, particularly those who are vulnerable, need banks to maintain their presence on our local high streets. It is incumbent on Government to act and to incentivise banks to have a high street presence.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the amendment and for his comments. As we have discussed previously—I was going to touch on this—the United States is not in a position to introduce the policy. It is a fact—politics in the US is like politics here or anywhere in the world—that the Republican party has made it abundantly clear that it will not allow this policy to go through. It wants to go further and to bring in legislation that will put retaliatory measures in place against countries that impose the new tax and burdens on US businesses and multinationals.

Returning to the amendment, I will come on to some specifics with regard to the dialogue I have been having with the Minister and the Chancellor on this subject. It is right that we scrutinise the policy, which the amendment seeks to do. It is right for the Government to pursue international agreement to address the complex tax arrangements, which hon. Members have referred to, that exist with multinational corporations and businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions. That is vital and makes sense.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

On the point about multinational corporations, does the right hon. Member think that it is right that we treat multinational corporations that produce oil and gas in a different way from the way we treat renewable energy companies, including companies that produce renewable energy and invest in renewable energy projects? At the moment, it seems that the energy profits levy treats those things in different ways. Will she be supporting Liberal Democrat amendments to the Bill to encourage investment in renewable energy projects?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I would rather businesses had zero taxation policies. I should declare an interest: when I was a Treasury Minister many years ago, I undertook the fiscal review of oil and gas. Frankly, we need to do everything to stimulate investment in both oil and gas and renewables. I would like to see consistency in policies on that.

Specifically to my point about multinationals and how they are taxed in jurisdictions, I support the Government in the sense that it is right to look to close tax loopholes where we see companies operating in multiple jurisdictions, but the plans for a global minimum tax are wrong, as I have raised in the House before. They are wrong and flawed for a number of reasons.

No one would deny that the introduction of such a measure is complex—it is not straightforward. I paid attention to the comments made by the hon. Member for Ealing North. There is no point just saying that we need to crack on and implement this; we have to do it in the right way, which is why I put forward the amendment. It even gives the Government scope for more time to look at the complexities around its implementation and to look at what our competitors are doing. We should not rush headlong into this. These are complex changes that will be challenging to enforce; I will speak about that, too.

I believe the measure is anti-competitive. It undermines our fiscal sovereignty. Without labouring the point too much, we have left the EU. The Government have the ability to make their own tax laws and fiscal sovereignty is crucial to this, too. Why are we are now going to surrender tax powers to the will of the OECD?

Economic growth has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee. We do not want to undermine our ability to be a low-tax global beacon of free trade. The Government are pursuing policies such as freeports. We all welcome that when it comes to competition, but we do not want to encourage a culture of subsidies, which this policy will do.

I believe that Governments and Parliaments must have flexibility to set their own fiscal policies and tax rates, striking a balance across all sectors, including multinational companies and small and medium-sized enterprises. Speaking as an MP for Essex, which is known to be an entrepreneurial county, SMEs are the backbone of our economy. We have to strike a balance between being competitive and having low tax rates to attract investment, and generating revenue to support public services—I agree with the hon. Member for Ealing North about that. If we are not competitive, we will not have the tax revenues to support public services. However, a minimum corporate tax would prevent us from doing that.

There are problems with the OECD’s plan, which is why I want to have greater scrutiny on implementation. The enforcement and implementation mechanisms are unclear and countries could find ways around them, which should concern us. They could find loopholes to circumvent the policy. The UK looks set to gold plate measures. We follow rules and standards when we sign up to them, which is the right thing to do when it comes to our Government policies. The same cannot be said for more than 130 countries that have taken an interest in the matter. For many, agreeing to the OECD framework appears to be more about rhetoric and the ability to take action on taxing multinationals, than making the changes necessary and following the committed approach that this Government plan to take. I have no doubt that the Minister will want to speak about that, because the Government are being diligent in their approach and more scrutiny is required.

Moreover, limiting fiscal freedoms opens the door for countries to entice investment from big businesses with big subsidies, which distorts the market. All hon. and right hon. Members will understand that in a subsidy race we simply cannot compete with the United States or even China. Some countries can pump millions of dollars into supporting investment from multinationals. That is not what we do in this country.

We are more competitive as a country in being able to deploy a full range of fiscal and tax-cutting powers, than we are in a race to the bottom with subsidies. There are serious concerns about how these plans will be enforced and, importantly, how disputes between countries will be resolved. I understand that negotiations with the OECD are taking longer than expected, which is not a surprise, and I think it will be some time before an agreement is reached, but by baking into primary legislation a requirement for us to implement without any further flexibility, we risk blindly signing up to a package where foreign officials could overrule decisions and interpretations in our own jurisdiction and in on our own Government.

The peer review panels, being set up to review implementation, could be made up of representatives from China or other hostile states—for example, Russia—all countries which are involved in the process and states that have concerning records on human rights, war crimes and other conflicts, which we debate in this House day in, day out. Frankly, they do not meet our standards and we should be cognisant of that. Our tax affairs could be judged by representatives from states that many in this House are concerned about.

There is then the issue of the date of implementation, which I have referred to in my amendment. The Government have been clear that they will implement the policy by the end of this year— as clause 264 states, from 31 December 2023. This measure, despite the concerns I am raising, can only have a chance of succeeding in the way the Government hope if it is implemented in a constituent manner by all states—or, if not that, by a critical mass—at the same time. This is where we have concerns. We are just not seeing this right now in other countries and among our competitors, because they are not as wedded to the date as we are. I understand why we have to put down the date to enshrine it in law.

The United States, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) has mentioned, will not be able to take this through to implementation by 2024. The Republicans in the House of Representatives are opposing those plans. But as well as opposing and preventing the US—our largest trading power—from introducing them, they are threatening retaliatory measures on countries that implement the policy, and in doing so will penalise US-based companies. So we could have a situation where this Government introduce a tax measure that adversely impacts on our trade and investment with the US. Of course, that could have an impact on trade negotiations and some of the work that other Departments are doing—such as Business and Trade, for example.

It would be interesting to know from the Minister whether this issue was discussed by the Prime Minister and the President in their recent bilateral talks. The US is crucial in this, but it is not just the US that will not implement the policy. The EU members are not going to implement the policy fully on day one. They have been given six years to implement tit. In Asia, major economies and competitors are setting dates behind the UK: Japan, Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong. Although that the Government have been clear about their intent, we need to know what they intend to do on implementation. I have put my own concerns about this tax on the record. I think the date is wrong.

Cash Acceptance

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for introducing the debate.

When I was a child, scratching around in the earth in Somerset I happened upon what I thought was a stone—it was more like a flat pebble—but was, in fact, a Roman coin. Reflecting on that today, it strikes me that we have spent 2,000 years in this country handling real currency. Coins and, in more recent years, notes have been with us for such a long time. I am therefore alarmed that our generation might see the end of real hard currency.

Members have expressed many real concerns this afternoon. Thinking about rural areas like mine, I am most concerned about the plight of older people. Both my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and I get stacks of correspondence from elderly constituents who just cannot abide trying to remember the PIN for a card that they have no assurance works, and have no faith or trust is reliable. In October 2022, the Bank of England stated:

“Cash remains an important payment method in the UK, and a critical means of payment for many people.”

In addition I endorse what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said about children and educating them about money. We do not know what the consequences may be for a generation who are not schooled with tangible money, but they may not be able to budget quite as well as their parents’ or grandparents’ generations for that fact.

We should also think about how our small businesses are affected. In rural areas such as my part of Devon, small businesses are concerned about the closure of not only banks, but cash machines. The other day, I received correspondence from the secretary of the Axminster chamber of commerce, who pointed out that the town of Axminster lost its last bank last autumn, and the neighbouring town of Honiton is set to lose its last branch of HSBC this summer. This issue is affecting in quite a miserable fashion some of the small businesses that depend on being able to deposit and withdraw money locally.

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about businesses in rural areas. When these facilities are withdrawn, businesses often face insurmountable challenges in terms of what they then do, where they travel to and how they staff their businesses when they have to travel to different places to carry out transactions or indeed take on new methods. Sometimes they just do not have the time to do that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a significant issue that is never covered in any of our discussions?

[Richard Foord]

I completely agree. It is great that we have an opportunity today to hear reassurance from the Minister on what the Government are doing to address some of these concerns. We have to ensure that nobody is locked out of our society simply because it is seen as easier for others to use electronic payments. Some people are more inclined to give to charity or leave tips if they can do so with notes and coins.

I am also curious to know what the Government think of tax evasion in relation to tangible money. When the Government think about phasing out cash, do they have one eye on how small and medium-sized enterprises pay VAT? Is that a factor when they think about how we will access money in the future?

As I draw my reflections to a close, I want to talk about another personal experience, this time of travelling in China. Before the pandemic, I was working in China, and my Chinese colleagues found it hilarious that I had brought notes and coins with me, because they were so used to using Alipay on their mobile phones. In some societies, it has become unfashionable—really passé—to use coins and notes. I am proud that we live in a liberal democracy that serves to protect the rights of minorities. One of those rights ought to be the continued use of tangible cash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I advise the hon. Lady to explore with Link the provision of potential alternative cash machines and to explore with the Access to Cash Action Group the potential for a banking hub. A number of Members have procured banking hubs for their constituencies. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has a banking hub and has spoken up about that issue.

[Richard Foord]

On banking hubs, the Axminster chamber of commerce has been trying to get through to the Access to Cash Action Group to find out when it will get its community banking hub, but has been unable to get through, so will the Minister comment a little further on Access to Cash Action Group communications?

[Andrew Griffith]

I will happily entertain treatises from the hon. Gentleman if he would like me to follow that up. There are 70 cash hubs on their way. Members throughout the House, including a number of his colleagues in Devon, have procured them. It sometimes takes a little while for them to appear because of planning issues or the need to get the right power arrangements and safe access in place for constituents. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with the banking hubs and work with them, he will find that there are solutions out there.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about the no-purchase cashback facility, which turns every single convenience store and retailer in the country into a potential cash-dispensing hub.