Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. As we debated on Second Reading, this is a commitment across G7 partners and with the European Union to take action on the proceeds of the assets that are held. For other complicated legal reasons, there is no intention to seize those assets at this time.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for his acknowledgement of the cross-party support for this measure, but to back up my colleague, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the $3 billion from the UK is generous and will make a difference, but the $300 billion in frozen assets would be utterly game changing. I accept the Minister’s argument at the moment about some of the more complicated legal issues. I know that he accepts the very serious situation that the Ukrainians are facing on the front, defending all of us. May I encourage him merely to continue to look at this issue and see whether he can work with G7 colleagues to find a way of unpicking the difficulties that he has highlighted?

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement, which I take in good faith. He will know that these matters are multilateral and subject to negotiation with other allies and G7 colleagues, but he will also know, as I am sure the whole House does, that we go into 2025 with a strength of resolve across those G7 countries to do all that we can to help Ukraine continue to mount its defence against the illegal invasion from Russia.

Any other payments beyond the extraordinary revenue acceleration loans to Ukraine or any other country that are unrelated to the ERA scheme are not covered by the provisions of the Bill; this money is in addition to other grants and payments that have been referred to in the House previously.

The clause contains provision for the UK to provide funding towards subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to, modify or replace the ERA. This provision allows for flexibility in the unlikely event that the scheme itself should significantly alter. It is not intended to be used without this change in circumstances.

Clause 2 simply sets out the short title of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in support of this Bill, and to pay tribute to the Government for their support for Ukraine and to the consensus across the House that Ukraine must be supported against the barbaric and illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) said. The invasion of one European state by another in February 2022 was something I never thought I would see in my lifetime—we all thought that had been consigned to the history books, where it belongs. I am very pleased that we are backing the Ukrainian people in their struggle, and I hope that in time, the Russian people can vote in free, fair and democratic elections to choose their own path.

I also pay tribute to the community of Northumberland, who have come together to welcome families from Ukraine in Hexham, in Riding Mill, and in other towns and villages across my constituency. When I am out and about in my constituency, I am always struck by the Ukrainian flags that I see, sometimes in the most incongruous places—on country lanes, on the sides of churches and in private homes. It really gives me a renewed optimism to see those flags flying beneath the beautiful Northumbrian sky. One question that has been put to me by constituents, and on which I would like to gently probe the Minister, is the future of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Many families who have taken in Ukrainian refugees have asked me to pursue clarity on that scheme, so I would be grateful if the Minister could give some assurance about it, or some timetable for it.

Ultimately, this short Bill is needed to promote and protect one of our sovereign democratic allies, to protect our institutions, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston said—to avoid the need for further conflict in the years to come. Putin’s war machine could quite easily continue to impinge on our lives and on people’s lives across the rest of Europe.

[Stephen Gethins]

I would endorse the comments that have been made by colleagues. I think we sometimes need a little bit of perspective. In my constituency and in Tayside and Fife—the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) will be well aware of this—we have defensive barriers that were built during the second world war. The barriers in Tayside and Fife were built by Polish and, as they now are, Ukrainian soldiers who were standing up to tyranny. They built those defences to defend Scotland, and to defend the rest of the United Kingdom as well. They knew that there is no point in standing up to tyranny just in one corner of Europe; we have to do it throughout Europe. Those defences stand as a testament to the time when the Poles and the Ukrainians stood by us. Now is the time for us to once again stand by them.

I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) about the way that Ukrainians have come to our homes and have enriched our society and our communities. I know they are keen to go home, but we can just give them that little bit of certainty. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for his work and that of others on frozen assets. That speaks to the enormous challenge that Ukraine is facing, and that the rest of us are therefore facing at exactly the same time.

I acknowledge the work of the Minister in seeking to untangle those assets. I welcome his remarks—I really do—but some of the administrative burdens are as nothing compared with the burdens that have been carried by Ukrainian troops on the frontline in Kursk, Donbas and elsewhere, and compared with the challenge we will see from conflict and a refugee crisis should that front collapse at any point. I know he gets that, and there is agreement across the Chamber on it, but I think it is worth underlining.

I also welcome the remarks made by the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), about engaging with our European partners on this, because that is pivotal. I fully endorse his remark about where a number of these funds are being kept, and about how if one moves, we all need to move. There is unanimity in this Committee, and I have been struck by the outstanding work done by a number of colleagues, That unanimity and resolve reflect the magnitude of the challenge that each and every one of us faces if we do not stand up to tyranny and secure the future of Europe right now.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, which allows us, alongside our G7 partners, to provide £38.6 billion of loans to Ukraine to be repaid using profits from sanctioned Russian assets, and I wholly support this Government’s commitment to stand unequivocally with Ukraine. I believe that Putin and his cronies should be the ones who pay for the damage they have caused across Ukraine. To that end, while this is a very welcome first step, does the Minister agree that we should be doing all we can within the rule of law to seize frozen Russian assets, both private and state, and use them to finance the reconstruction of Ukraine?

Moreover, may I gently suggest to the Minister that we must secure a swift resolution on the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club? In March 2022, Roman Abramovich pledged to sell Chelsea football club and donate the £2.5 billion—nearly seven times the value of the humanitarian assistance that the UK has pledged since the invasion in 2022—to support victims of the war in Ukraine. However, as I think all Members know, two years on from the sale, this has hit a stalemate, and regrettably no money has been delivered to the victims of the conflict.

With that in mind, the Government should commit to a number of recommendations that the campaign group Redress has worked on, and all of which I support. The first recommendation is taking steps to ensure that the proceeds of the sale of Chelsea football club are swiftly transferred to a charitable foundation in the UK, or adopting other existing mechanisms set up to deliver reparations to victims of the conflict. The second is ensuring that a substantial percentage of the funds is used for reparations for victims of the conflict, particularly victims of gross violations of international human rights and humanitarian, such as survivors of conflict-related sexual violence. The third recommendation is to engage Ukrainian civil society, victims and survivors in guiding the repurposing of those funds. The fourth and final recommendation is to establish a working group between the Government, civil society and survivors to ensure that funds are distributed in an effective and timely manner.

I very much welcome the substantial progress that the Government have made in the past few months in standing shoulder to shoulder with the Ukrainian people, including the recent announcement of a new anti-corruption champion, the further designation of vessels in the Russian shadow fleet and increasing collaboration across Government to tackle Putin’s war economy, bearing down on both the Kremlin and the wider network of cronies who enable his unlawful and persistent invasion of Ukraine. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) said, the Bill is an important step, and I welcome further initiatives to support the Ukrainian people as they continue their struggle to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Putin’s unlawful invasion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As my hon. Friend set out, the Government confirmed the introduction of a vaping products duty to ensure that young people and non-smokers do not take up vaping. Registration for the duty will open on the digital platform from 1 April 2026, and the duty will take effect from 1 October that year.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

On economic black holes, the Labour Mayor of London thinks that Brexit punched a £40 billion black hole in the public finances. A very simple question for the Chancellor: has leaving the EU been a net positive or a net negative for the public finances?

[Darren Jones]

The Government have no overall estimate of the impact of the UK’s exit from the EU, but the OBR has projected a 4% drop in productivity in the long term. That is why we are starting negotiations with the EU to improve trade in our mutual interest.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on her maiden speech. It was so lovely to hear about her family. I was encouraged to hear about her revolutionary constituents who were keen on parliamentary reform. They will certainly have plenty of support from Scottish National party Members in those ambitions.

I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill to the Chamber. We are now 1,000 days on from the full-scale invasion, but it has been well over 10 years since Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine. I reassert First Minister John Swinney’s acknowledgment of that anniversary yesterday, and the continued commitment to Ukraine of my party and the Scottish Government. This issue cuts across the Chamber, and it is good to see so much unanimity on it.

Why is that important? Because the Ukrainians are fighting for each and every one of us who values democracy, liberty and independence across Europe. They are the frontline defending us and those we represent, as well as our friends and colleagues around Europe. Sometimes, it is easy to lose sight of that. The Bill is about aiding Ukraine, but it is also about investing in our own security. This is a national security issue, and it is a good investment for us.

Let us think for a moment about the consequences of not supplying, arming and providing finance to Ukraine. It would mean a collapse and one of the worst refugee crises that Europe has ever experienced. It would mean a hit to the rules-based system, which I suspect those of us who believe in that system would see as difficult to recover from. Bluntly, it would mean a broadening of the war. Vladimir Putin is not stopping in Ukraine in the same way that he did not stop in Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Libya—you name it.

Although we are absolutely supportive of the Bill, which certainly has my party’s support, I will pick up on a couple of points that have been raised, on which clarification would be helpful. I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), who said that this Bill does not go far enough. From an arms and security perspective, we often provide supplies to Ukraine that allow it to fight and not lose the war, but not to win it. That goes for the arms and the finances being supplied.

I will pick up on a point made quite rightly by the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). There are $300 billion-worth of frozen assets. I know that the Minister will not be able to pick up on this today, and it is not part of the Bill, but I encourage her to come back to the Chamber at some point and provide us with an update. She will find that she has support across the Chamber. I know that this issue is not easy and is about building links with other partners, and there will be some resistance to that, but the amount of money in the Bill, which I acknowledge is an important contribution, is dwarfed in scale by the amount of finances that it could provide by unfreezing those assets.

The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth also made a point about sovereign immunity. Russia gave up its sovereign immunity when it launched the full-scale invasion and therefore forced this war on the sovereignty of Ukraine. We also have the principle of the universality of certain crimes, and we have seen allegations about universal crimes committed in Ukraine, with very substantial evidence. That is obviously a matter for the International Criminal Court, but I encourage lawyers to look into the principle of universality on some of the issues in that area. I know that the Minister is sympathetic and that this is not entirely as simple as many of us would like it to be, but from the comments we have heard from across the Chamber, there appears to be a great deal of support for the unfreezing of those assets. It would be fantastic to see the UK Government provide leadership in that area.

I also point to the fact that we have seen fantastic leadership from the Czechs, Estonians and Finns. What makes their leadership so compelling is that they know what happens if we give in to Russian aggression. They know at first hand and have generational knowledge within living memory of what happens when we give in to this kind of aggression. I encourage the Minister to look into that and endorse the points made about the sale of the proceeds from Chelsea football club, which is also very significant. That $300 billion would be transformative in helping Ukraine to fight this war for all of us.

I also ask the Minister about the broader finance issue of the effectiveness of sanctions. We know that Russia has been able to get around sanctions, but we must redouble our efforts. I make reference to a report that I was involved in writing when I sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which was on Moscow’s gold and dirty money. There were allegations about some of that money was going through London. I refer the Minister’s Treasury colleagues to have a look at that; it was a very good bit of work undertaken on a cross-party basis. This issue is crucial.

My final point is that our time is limited. We have a new Administration coming in in the United States in January, and we know that the signs are not entirely promising in terms of the support that we have seen from the United States in recent years. This war should actually have been a wake-up call to all of us in Europe 10 years ago. Given the fact that we have had this election in the United States, we are very late to the party on this issue, but we have a huge responsibility to pull together as Europeans. The Ukrainians are on the frontline and deserve our support. This is an investment in our own security. I absolutely support the Bill, but we need to go that little bit further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I will respond briefly to the debate for the Opposition. First, I commend all the speakers, and particularly the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth). It is rare for so many in this House to congratulate a Member on their maiden speech, but it was warranted because she spoke so nicely and kindly about her constituency, as well as with great generosity about her predecessor and very movingly about her father. She should take away the great support from all Members across the House, and we wish her the best of luck in her future here.

The Minister will be aware, having listened to the debate, of the comprehensive support for the Bill. She will have heard calls from some quarters to extend the provisions of the Bill to include seizing not only proceeds from the profits, but the assets. Such a move would be a very large step for the UK to take, and I do not think the official Opposition would support that without very strong convincing from the Government. But on all the other aspects, she will have seen the comprehensive support.

[Stephen Gethins]

On the seizure of assets and the $300 billion, we were trying to make the point that this needs to be explored very seriously. It would be transformative for the Ukrainian war effort and would therefore be transformative for our security. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point that this is not easy and about the impact that it might have. However, will he join me in encouraging the Treasury to look at this and come back to us with further details about the possible implications and how it might take this forward, so that we can all, as a House, examine it in greater detail?

[Richard Fuller]

I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Treasury looks at these options on a continuing basis, but, consistently, the point of view held by the previous Government—and I would assume by the current Government—is that that is not the right step to take. But perhaps the Minister will update the House on her views on that in a moment.

Given the support, there was the opportunity for the Government to move forward with all stages of the Bill, so that it could proceed and be completed in this House today. Will the Minister say why that decision was not made and perhaps provide some sense of the timetable for when the Bill will be brought to the House for its concluding stages? But the Opposition’s general message is that we fully support the intentions of the Bill, and we will support it on Second Reading.

Winter Fuel Payment

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

No, I will not.

Over the last five weeks, we have already seen claims for pension credit more than double, and, backed by more than 450 additional staff, we will ensure that claims are processed as quickly as possible.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said in the earlier debate, we will bring forward the merger of housing benefit and pension credit as soon as that is operationally possible, something that the last Government promised but failed to deliver. We are also taking action to ensure that all pensioners get the income that they deserve. Despite being urged by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others to drop the triple lock during the election campaign, the Government are steadfast in their commitment to it. The triple lock has seen the state pension increase by £2,700 over the last five years, and it was increased by £900 this year and by £970 in the previous year. According to figures released today, which still need to be confirmed, in October we will see the provision of an extra £460 a year from next April.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Reynolds]

No, I will not.

Moreover, the warm home discount of £150 will help low-income pension households this year. That is critically important, because it is not just for the lowest-income pensioners on pension credit. It is for pensioners on low incomes who have high energy costs, and it will be open to application in October.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

What an agreeable and benevolent fellow the Minister is. We are deeply obliged to him.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the economic effect on Scotland of the UK leaving the EU.

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

The Government published a detailed set of economic analyses on the long-term impacts of EU exit on the UK economy—its sectors, nations and regions, and the public finances—covering multiple EU exit scenarios. The analysis shows that the spectrum of outcomes for the future UK-EU relationship would deliver significantly higher economic output than in a no-deal scenario in all nations, including Scotland.

[Stephen Gethins]

The Minister is right to highlight those analyses, which show that every single Brexit will be damaging to our economy and will hit public services. Coming after a decade of Tory austerity, will he rule out a no-deal Brexit and use the comprehensive spending review to start investing in our public services?

[John Glen]

Clearly, the best way of avoiding a no-deal Brexit is to look favourably on what the Prime Minister brings back to the House of Commons in the week commencing 3 June.

Santander Closures and Local Communities

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing and organising this debate, which I was happy to support.

To strike a note that may be slightly discordant with the speeches of other hon. Members, I must say that I really value online banking. It has been transformative for me personally in terms of ease of access to finance, and we should not forget how many people’s lives it makes easier. I am cautious about unduly amplifying people’s fears about the security of transactions. Yes, there is clearly a big problem with online fraud—I myself was recently a victim to the tune of several thousand pounds—but it is a very small percentage of the overall number of transactions, and the risk lies squarely with the banks themselves. A genuine and proportionate look at the risks associated with online banking suggests that they are often outweighed by the level of convenience that it can bring if we increase people’s online access and computer literacy and ensure that they have a proper understanding.

It is ultimately futile, although it may be gratifying, to rail against individual banks every time they pull out of a high street. I am deeply disappointed that Santander is pulling out of Ulverston, especially given the track record of other banking institutions that have said they foresee only one set of closures, but then, a couple of years down the track or even sooner, close other branches as well. I am waiting for the figures that Santander said it would try to get for me about the busyness of the Barrow-in-Furness branch that customers will be transferred to.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good case. Given the nature of his constituency, which in some ways is very similar to mine, does he agree that the branch network is particularly important to rural areas? In places such as St Andrews and Ulverston, having that rural network goes beyond the personal banking that people can do online; it connects small businesses.

[John Woodcock]

It absolutely does, and let me say a little more about that point before I go in what may be an unexpected direction and ask whether beating up the banks will really work. The banks on our high streets in communities such as the hon. Gentleman’s and mine are so important for individual customers and businesses. Businesses need access to cash. At the meeting we had last week on the closure in Ulverston, I resolved to help the local business improvement district to survey its businesses about their priorities and needs.

Businesses report a loss of footfall every time a high street branch goes; the evidence is anecdotal at the moment, but we want to put more data behind it. There is also a community aspect. Every bank has a cohort of relatively vulnerable people who rely on it, not only for financial transactions but because it gets them out of the house and, basically, enables banking staff to check that they are okay. As those things are eroded, our communities themselves will bear the brunt.

We will not get anywhere if we do not properly acknowledge the drivers of change within our communities, where people increasingly go online. We have to see what genuine levers we have to change things. That does not mean coming into the House of Commons and shouting at institutions; none the less, we do have levers if we are prepared to come together to demand that the Government use them. For private sector institutions, of course we can do our best to promote the business value of a high street presence. I said last week and I say it strongly again, let us be loyal to the banks that choose to be loyal to our areas.

At the meeting I mentioned, I was impressed to hear from individuals such as the mayor of Ulverston, Dave Webster, who says he has tracked his finances over the years as more and more banks have closed, and will do so again as a Santander customer moving to a branch of a bank that is prepared to have its roots in the town centre. It is good to have the Cumberland Building Society there, which prides itself on keeping footfall in the area. Let us vote with our feet and for institutions that are prepared to root themselves in our areas.

Ultimately, it will be down to the Government to respond. Some Members have rightly mentioned the Post Office. We were pleased and proud to be able to save Ulverston post office from the threat of closure. My goodness, how much more important it will be now as Santander becomes the latest branch to pull out of Ulverston. We require a loss-leading investment in communities and I suggest the Government should ultimately be the guarantor of financial services in an area through an expanded post office network.

I very much add my voice to those speaking out against further branch closures, but I want to add two more elements. First, we have the Post Office card account. I realise that primary responsibility for that lies with the Department for Work and Pensions, but I remember my time in the Department, where I was an adviser to the Secretary of State between 2005 and 2007. Back then, the civil servants, whom we generally worked with very effectively, made the tactics of “Yes, Minister” look timid as they tried to bounce through a policy that radically reduced reliance on Post Office card accounts. Frankly, in the first drafts that we saw, they were not being straight with Post Office card account customers and what their options were. The Minister might like to correct me, but I understand that that process has resumed.

It is outrageous if Post Office card account customers are not clearly told in their advice from the Government and the Post Office that they can maintain a Post Office card account. What was put to us back then and I understand may be being put to the Minister now is advice to customers on how to change from a Post Office card account to a bank account, without telling them explicitly that they have the ability to stay.

Secondly, if the policy is be loss-leading, we cannot just rely on the good will of private banking institutions. Let us put in place an ongoing levy for high street banks to make sure that an institution is rooted in communities, guaranteed by that, and let us strongly consider that institution being the Post Office.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are putting a record £6 billion into childcare and guaranteeing working parents 30 hours a week of childcare for three and four-year-olds, but I am happy to ask one of my colleagues to meet him. We are always happy to discuss such issues. This aspect of funding, along with all others, can also be considered in the round at the spending review.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

20. Austerity under this Government and the previous one has cost the Scottish Government £2 billion, meaning less money for education and other public services. Will the Chancellor bring an end to this failed austerity and also repay the £175 million from VAT on police and fire services?

[Mr Hammond]

What the hon. Gentleman does know, but chooses not to say, is that as a result of the measures announced in the Budget last week, including the huge increase in NHS England funding, Scotland will receive over £2 billion more through the Barnett formula by 2023-24.

Banking in North Ayrshire

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to have secured this debate on banking in North Ayrshire, although I really wish it was not necessary. I should apologise in advance for my croaky voice as I struggle through this speech. I have been trying to secure this debate since November, when the closures of RBS branches in Kilwinning, Kilbirnie and Saltcoats were first announced. I have the fortune, or misfortune, to have secured this debate on the very week when I have lost my voice—make of that what you will.

Since November, I have spoken in three debates on bank closures, written several letters to Ross McEwan, the chief executive of RBS, and raised this matter with the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which has summoned the chief executive of RBS. I have also held street stalls with SNP local councillors, activists and volunteers on countless Saturdays in the affected towns since Christmas, collecting signatures for a parliamentary petition protesting against these closures, which I will be presenting in this place in the coming weeks.

The reason for all this activity is the real anger and betrayal felt by the people of Kilwinning, Saltcoats and Kilbirnie at the loss of these banks in their towns. RBS is a bank that they own via the Government—a bank bailed out from its own mistakes and mismanagenent by their taxes.  Now this same bank is leaving these communities without a backward glance or any sense of social responsibility towards the very communities on whose taxes the bank’s very continued existence relied.

Although many communities in Scotland will be left without a bank following the latest announcement of closures, in my own constituency what has happened brings the total number of towns with no bank to a staggering six.  The towns of Dalry, Stevenston, West Kilbride, Ardrossan and Beith no longer have a bank; should the latest round of closures go ahead, we can add Kilwinning to that list. Kilwinning will be a town of over 16,000 people with no banking facilities—it would be funny if it were not so appalling and ridiculous. I honestly do not think any other constituency in the UK has been so adversely, cruelly hit. Indeed, the banks are stampeding out of Ayrshire at an alarming—a staggering—rate.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I salute my hon. Friend’s courage in getting through the debate. Does she agree that rural areas are particularly badly hit by bank closures? I am thinking of those in North East Fife, where RBS closed all but one, leaving a huge commute for those who need banking services the most.

[Patricia Gibson]

I do. I will come later to the fact that no cognisance has been shown of the consequences for communities that the banks are supposed to serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I am not going to give way; I am just going to continue.

Each bank’s branch strategy, including whether to open or close individual branches, is for the management of that bank to determine. I understand that that is frustrating. It is frustrating to all of us who face this issue. The Government rightly do not intervene in these commercial decisions, nor do the Government manage the RBS Group. RBS is headed by its own board, which is responsible for strategic direction and management decisions. All businesses strive to deliver for their customers, but they also need to be able to plan for the future and to make changes where they are needed. These are complex commercial decisions. RBS has made its decisions in line with its commercial strategy.

[Stephen Gethins]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Glen]

No, I will not.

The hon. Lady and her colleagues are entitled to ask questions, as they have done very effectively this evening, and to press RBS on its rationale. Although I do not agree that the Government should or could cancel RBS’s decisions, I am certain that the hon. Lady’s views, expressed here again this evening on behalf of her constituents, will have been heard by RBS.

I turn to the Government’s role with respect to the Post Office. The hon. Lady has previously said that the Government have “not lifted a finger” to help. I beg to differ. The Government are taking action, and I welcome the opportunity to reiterate that. For those who still need or want to bank in person, we have helped to expand and improve face-to-face banking services at the Post Office. There are 11,600 post office branches in the UK, 24 of them in the hon. Lady’s constituency. There is a post office in each of the three towns that she mentioned—Kilwinning, Kilbirnie, and Saltcoats. Indeed, across the UK, 99% of personal customers and 95% of business customers can do their day-to-day banking at the post office.

In response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who was concerned about—

RBS Rural Branch Closures

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, it is not just about those 13 branches. There is justified anger in many communities surrounding the 62 branches signalled for closure in Scotland and the 259 in the United Kingdom. RBS is turning its back on communities throughout the United Kingdom, and it will find that those communities call on it to think again.

RBS is a bank that we all have a stake in. We collectively own just short of 73% of the company. We rightly bailed the bank out in 2008, at a cost of £45 billion. We own RBS. We saved RBS in order that it could continue to offer banking services to our communities, to individuals and to businesses.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the powerful case that he is making. Is he aware that the closures that were recently announced are not the only ones? Some months ago, many of us campaigned against closures in Cupar, Leven and Anstruther, which have also been left without RBS branches.

Commercial Financial Dispute Resolution Platform

Stephen Gethins Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[George Kerevan]

I take my hon. Friend’s point. There are so many individual cases. They cut across all the nations of the United Kingdom and Members of all parties. My plea to the Minister is that we desperately need to find a permanent resolution.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend made a good point about encouraging small businesses. It is important that we get a fair deal for small businesses. He will be aware of the case of my constituent, Mr Jim McGrory, who was looking to refinance at a preferential rate, but was faced with high exit fees and termination clauses that had not been made clear in the terms and conditions. That is crucial for small businesses, and it was crucial for Mr McGrory.

[George Kerevan]

Indeed. That brings us to the nub of the issue: the imbalance in power between an individual small business and a bank.