Cost of Living Increases

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns successive Conservative Governments for their mismanagement of the economy over 13 years; regrets that this has resulted in the UK being the only G7 economy that is still smaller than before the pandemic, with squeezed wages and higher mortgage rates that have increased costs by £500 a month for some households; further regrets that successive Chancellors have made working people pay for the Government’s economic failure with 24 tax rises since 2019, creating the highest tax burden in 70 years, while refusing to abolish the non-domicile tax loophole; is extremely concerned about the impact on household budgets of an inflation rate of more than 10 per cent with food prices rising at their fastest rate in 45 years; therefore calls on the Government to ease the cost of living crisis by freezing council tax this year, paid for by an extended windfall tax on oil and gas company profits; further calls on the Government to cut business rates for small businesses and support energy intensive industries including food manufacturers with their energy bills to help bring down the cost of everyday items; and finally calls on the Government to adopt Labour’s economic mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7 with good jobs in every part of the country.

It astonishes me that the Conservatives are acting like the cost of living crisis is over and their economic plan is working. The Chancellor is proudly boasting that Britain is back. He has even said:

“The declinists are wrong and the optimists are right. We stick to the plan because the plan is working.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 847.]

What planet does the Chancellor live on? Does he understand the reality on the ground for all of our constituents? Does he understand that on the Prime Minister’s watch, our economy is weaker, with the UK forecast to have the worst growth in the G7 this year? Real wages are lower than they were 15 years ago, with families in the UK going into the cost of living crisis significantly poorer than those in comparable European countries. The price of everyday essentials has risen by an eye-watering £3,000 since 2020, and never before have people in this country paid so much money for so little value from their public services.

The disconnect between this Conservative fantasy and the experiences of ordinary people could not be wider. Decent, hard-working people across the country are being forced to cut back on the things that underpin a good life. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will explain what I mean by a good life: a meal out once in a while with close friends, the special annual family holiday that you look forward to all year round, and a decent home to call your own. Those are increasingly things of the past; instead, people are left worrying about how they are going to pay their household bills at the end of the month and their rocketing mortgage costs.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for opening her speech in such a powerful way. Does she agree that it is really worrying that we hear tales of parents going without a meal, just to make sure that their children are able to eat?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is a doughty champion for the children from deprived families who live in her constituency. We have surgeries where people line up to speak to us who cannot afford to eat because, as my hon. Friend says, they are saving their money to buy one meal for their children. This is Britain in 2023. We should not be in this situation.

It is important to remember how we got here in the first place. The Government have mishandled the cost of living crisis at every turn. Indeed, we will never forget the Conservatives crashing the economy last year, and we will never forgive them for it.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is totally right about the perverse choices that people are having to make. A young mum in Abingdon who has her kids in childcare is having to decide whether she pays the debt that she owes to the childcare provider, pays her prescription charges, or buys food for herself and her children. How is that a country that we can be proud of? It is because the Conservatives mismanaged the economy, is it not?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She has outlined lots of situations that we hear about every day from our constituents, yet the Conservatives say that their economic plan is working—it is clearly not working. The resulting rise in interest rates and the economic instability have added £500 a month to first-time buyers’ bills. For too many, dreams of home ownership and starting a family have been destroyed—another pillar of the good life knocked away.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the Chancellor’s suggestion that the Government are the optimists and we are the declinists. In fact, are the optimists not those people who have taken on a mortgage and achieved that dream of home ownership, and who are being so cruelly let down by the incompetence of this Government?

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to ask the Conservatives how they can continue to live in this fantasy world, because it does not match the reality on the ground. Let us not forget the impact of rising prices. Food prices are growing 50% faster than anywhere else in the G7, putting Britain’s food inflation rate at 19.2%, compared with an average of 12.8%. The price of sugar is up by an incredible 42%. Milk is up by more than 33%, and pasta is up by 25%. The UK has the highest inflation level in western Europe. That is a national scandal.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

The hon. Lady says that the inflation figures here are higher than anywhere else in the G7. Food price inflation in Germany is over 22%, compared with 17% in the UK. Is that also the fault of the Conservative Government?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not proud of all the figures I am outlining and the high inflation that is coming up. The Conservatives can manipulate the stats all they want, but they cannot run away from the fact that we are falling behind our peers. That is not something I am proud of, and they should not be either.

Since 2020, the cost of a typical food shop is up by £700 a year. Clothing and footwear are up by £140. Household goods and services are up by £360. Transport is up by £800. [Interruption.] I do not know why Government Members are laughing; these are real figures that our constituents are dealing with. The essentials of housing, fuel and power are up by a shocking £1,480.

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady aware that the Government have subsidised people’s energy bills by about 50%, and if so, by how much would Labour subsidise them?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I will come to energy shortly. If the hon. Member were able to answer, I would ask him whether he thinks 50% is enough, because it is not enough. If he speaks to people on the ground, he will see how much they are struggling. The rising costs of everyday essentials mean that families across the country are making cutbacks just to stay afloat. That has been devastating for local economies, with communities losing the businesses and institutions that bind us together.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a fact that the village of Altnaharra in my constituency is every year the coldest place in the entire United Kingdom. We already have pensioners having to make the invidious decision to wrap themselves up in blankets and put the heating off. No one should face that sort of decision.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The situations being described are not what we want to hear about in our country in 2023, and we should not be proud of this record; we should be trying to do better.

Under this Government, more than 6,000 pubs, nearly 4,000 local shops and 9,000 bank branches have closed on our local high streets. That is nothing to be proud of.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I am sure we have all been concerned by stories from our constituents who are missing out on meals, eating out-of-date food or unable to clean their clothes as often as they want. Does she share my concern that that is having a devastating impact on the development of young children in the early years? We need to know that those children are fed and have heating.

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend is always fighting for her constituents, and she is absolutely right. As someone who was on the shadow Education team before I came to this role, I know that if our young children are not fed or looked after properly, they will not fulfil their potential in this country. We should be looking at the future generations, and the Government are ignoring them.

The Government’s mishandling of the cost of living crisis is just another chapter in the long story of 13 years of economic failure. More than a decade of Conservative rule has seen our country fall behind as the British economy has experienced low growth, rock-bottom productivity rates and chronic under-investment.

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important speech. I find it deeply offensive that Conservative Members are laughing at some of these statistics. That just shows how out of touch they are with the reality of life for so many people across this country. Does she agree that it is an absolute travesty in 2023 that we have families where children are having to share beds, sleep on the floor or sleep in the bathtub because people cannot afford to move house, to pay their rent and to pay for food for their families? That is not a laughing matter.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Having campaigned in her constituency, I know there are huge levels of poverty in certain places. Someone from the back said that we are lucky here because we are MPs and get paid a decent salary. We certainly should not be laughing at people who are struggling to make ends meet.

I remind the House that, when Labour was in government, real GDP growth averaged 2%. If growth had continued at the same rate under this Tory Government, we would have £40 billion more to spend on our public services, without having to raise a single tax. Instead, a lack of strategic policy making, economic uncertainty and the absence of an industrial strategy mean that the UK is going through the slowest economic recovery in the G7.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is asserting that the UK economy has fallen behind since 2010. Does she recognise the figures that show that this country has actually grown faster than Italy, Japan and France since 2010 to date and that, since 2016—since the Brexit vote—it has grown at about the same pace as Germany?

[Tulip Siddiq]

The Conservatives can manipulate the stats as much as they want, but they cannot run away from the fact that we are falling behind our peers. [Laughter.] I do not care how much Conservative Members want to laugh; I know that is the truth. It is families who are bearing the brunt of the low growth. A decade of stagnant wages has left the British people highly exposed to rising prices. If the hon. Member who just intervened can dispute this figure, he is welcome to intervene again: the average French and German family are now 10% and 19% richer than their respective British counterparts. If we continue down this path of managed decline and our growth rate stays where it has been over the past decade, families in the UK will be poorer than those in Poland by 2030 and poorer than those in Hungary and Romania by 2040. I see the hon. Member—

[Jerome Mayhew]

rose—

[Tulip Siddiq]

Yes, please.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is a great pleasure to be given the role of the Opposition spokesman from the Back Benches here, but there is a difference between economic data that is factual, has happened and can be verified, and straight-line projections of the future between now and 2030 that have not happened and will not happen.

[Tulip Siddiq]

As I figured, the hon. Member did not have a response to the question I asked. If we do not break with the Tories’ failed economic model, the necessary underpinnings of a good life—as I have mentioned, fair wages, secure work, a decent home—will be further eroded.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case and making a salient point. Does she agree that the constituents she has already mentioned, who are dealing with all these price hikes—the worst in 45 years—and who come to our constituency offices every week, do not care that we grew faster than Italy in 2010, but they care that they cannot heat their homes now and cannot feed their children and they are worried about their elderly parents? The blame can be laid at nobody’s door but this Conservative Government’s.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right. This Conservative fantasy just does not match up to the reality on the ground.

Instead of putting forward a comprehensive plan for growth, successive Conservative Chancellors have made hard-working families pay for their economic failure. The Conservatives have become the party of tax rises for the hard-working majority. Since 2019, the British people have been hit with 24 tax rises. It is the highest tax burden in 70 years. Earlier this month, we saw council tax bills rise above £2,000—some Members might think that is funny; it is not funny for my constituents—for the first time, as the Chancellor effectively forced councils to put up rates by reducing their funding. That saw families who were already struggling hit with an additional average tax hike of 5.1%—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members have something to say, instead of chuntering from a sedentary position, they should intervene. They should not shout from the front.

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

With pleasure.

[Simon Baynes]

Earlier, the hon. Lady mentioned fair work. Does she agree that the rise in unemployment under the last Labour Government from 2.1 million to 2.5 million, and the 45% increase in youth unemployment, is far removed from fair work?

[Tulip Siddiq]

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Labour Government introduced the first minimum wage, slashed child poverty and slashed pensioner poverty because we grew the economy—something this Government have failed to do?

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and outlining exactly what Labour did in government to make a difference for working people. In Labour-led Wales, where the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) is also an MP, we have just increased the education maintenance allowance, which was scrapped in England, to give students the opportunity not to have to choose between buying books and going to school, and having to find a job to support themselves.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I hope hon. Members hear that before they start criticising any sort of Labour Government.

Things are only set to get worse. The Government’s stealth tax and freeze on income tax and national insurance contribution thresholds will, according to the Resolution Foundation, cost households £25 billion a year by 2027-28.

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Not now, as I want to make some progress. At the same time, the Chancellor has given the 1% wealthiest pension savers a £1 billion handout, and he has continued to defend the indefensible: the non-domicile tax loophole. Instead of growing the economy and boosting wages, the Conservatives have resorted to hammering ordinary people with tax rises. It is time for a radically different approach.

[Paul Bristow]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I will make a bit of progress. We need a bold plan for growth that confronts the problems of the UK’s declining economy head on. That is why the Government must adopt Labour’s mission to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7, with job creation and productivity growth in every part of the country, making everyone, not just a few, better off. That may seem ambitious, but Britain has so much potential.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I will give way one more time.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The motion says that Labour will extend the windfall tax on oil and gas companies and

“further calls on the Government to cut business rates for small businesses”.

What values would the Labour Opposition propose?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am just about to come to the part of my speech about the windfall tax and business rates, so if the hon. Gentleman listens carefully, he will hear. The talents and efforts of working people and British businesses mean that we lead the way in financial and legal services, and the tech and life sciences sectors. With a proper industrial strategy, the UK economy will not just lead the pack again, but communities written off by the Conservatives will have the backing they need to make their full contribution to our great nation. Labour will achieve that by forging a new covenant between Government and industry, bringing in public investment through our green prosperity plan to support new industries. That will include investment in areas such as fuel cell manufacturing, nuclear, hydrogen and home insulation to bring down energy prices and create well-paid jobs in the industries of the future across the UK, while fixing the holes in the Brexit deal and bringing in a proper supply chain strategy will help to tackle inflation and build the resilient trading economy we need to get ahead.

Labour will work in partnership with businesses to help people get the skills and opportunities they need. We will not leave potential untapped. We will fix the apprenticeship levy, improve local employment services and help first-time buyers get on the housing ladder through a comprehensive mortgage guarantee scheme to boost local living standards. Only Labour, through our plan to grow the economy, will create the conditions for a good life in every part of the country. We will create well-paid jobs, bring home ownership back within reach for young families and ensure that the NHS delivers for all.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

The hon. Member may want to sit down and hear the next bit because I am sure he is going to ask the same question.

However, we also recognise that people need help today. That is why, if Labour were in government today, we would freeze council tax this year to stop bills from rising above £2,000, paid for by an extended windfall tax on oil and gas company profits. Even though Office for National Statistics figures confirm that 2022 was a record year for North sea oil and gas profits—even though the ONS confirmed that—the Conservatives are again choosing to protect the energy giants’ windfalls of war.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I think the hon. Gentleman should listen, actually.

By refusing to backdate the tax to January 2022, end the investment allowance tax loophole and raise the rate in line with other countries, the Chancellor has left billions on the table, leaving working people to pick up the rising council tax bill. Labour would use the additional funds raised by a proper windfall tax to cut energy bills for domestic food manufacturers and processors, and we would cut business rates for small shops, paid for by properly taxing online giants, to bring down the eyewatering cost of everyday items. We would also reverse the Conservative decision to hand the 1% wealthiest pension savers a £1 billion handout and instead introduce specific measures to keep doctors in work. And we would close the non-dom tax loophole, so people who live and work here pay their tax here. We would use that money to fund one of the biggest expansions of the NHS workforce in history. Those are straightforward measures. The Government could introduce them today to show people they are on their side, but we know they will not because they have given up on Britain.

At the heart of today’s Opposition day debate is a simple question that everyone up and down the country will be asking themselves: “After 13 years of Conservative rule, am I better off?” The simple answer is no. People now have a clear choice: between a tired Conservative Government out of ideas, and a Labour party committed to forging a new partnership with British business to create good jobs and boost wages; between a Conservative Party that puts developers before first-time buyers, and a Labour party committed to the principle of home ownership and giving young families a start in life; and between the Conservatives, the party of high taxation and Government handouts to the wealthiest 1%, and Labour, the party committed to putting working people and businesses first, freezing council tax and cutting business rates to ease the cost of living. Only the Labour party has a serious plan for growth to improve living standards and wages for working people. [Interruption.] Those on the Conservative Benches can laugh all they want, but only the Labour party has a vision of a better life for the British people.

Amendments of the Law (Resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited) Order 2023

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 General Committees

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone.

The Labour party welcomes the quick work done by the Treasury, the Bank of England and regulators to secure the HSBC rescue deal for the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank. SVB UK serves a high concentration of life science and tech companies in this country. As the Minister said, those firms play an indispensable role in driving growth and innovation across the economy. That is why we will give our full support to the statutory instrument.

I have a number of questions about the detail of the measure, including on where it sits in the Government’s wider strategy for financial stability. In the US, we saw that SVB made financial decisions based on an assumption that interest rates would remain low for some time. That contributed to its failure. We have also seen difficulties in other banks, such as Credit Suisse. How is the Minister working with the Bank of England, regulators and national partners to review the impact of interest rate rises and wider uncertainty on our financial system? What steps is he taking to mitigate risks?

As the Minister set out, under the SI, HSBC has been given an exemption from certain ringfencing requirements so that it can provide preferential intra-group lending or funding to SVB UK. Will he set out in further detail the background to and justification for that decision, as well as the Government’s announced intention to permit SVB UK to remain exempt from the ringfencing rules beyond the four-year transition period? Of course, we recognise the circumstances that SVB UK is in but, as he knows, ringfencing reforms were introduced for good reason: to protect savers and taxpayers from a banking crisis. I need reassurance from him that, contrary to what has been suggested, the Government do not propose any further tinkering with the ringfencing regime beyond this measure for SVB UK.

I wanted to bring up the risks to start-ups. The risk that the collapse of SVB poses to the tech sector underlines the importance of ensuring that UK start-ups have access to a deep and diverse pool of capital. What reassurance can the Minister provide that under HSBC’s ownership, SVB UK will continue to be able to support early-stage tech and life-science businesses in the UK? Beyond that, what will the Government do to ensure that start-ups have access to a wide pool of patient capital?

As I set out, we support the SI, which helps to protect the health of SVB UK and the tech sector that it supports, but I would like reassurance from the Minister on my concerns.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

If I may, I will gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the OBR has previously stated that it is too early to reach definitive conclusions. The Government are focused on seizing the opportunities provided by Brexit, including the world’s biggest zero-tariff, zero-quota trade deal. Indeed, Scotland itself will benefit from 71 new trade deals secured with non-EU countries and control of our fishing waters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also welcomes the £8.6 million invested in Scotland’s festival economy at the Budget last week.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Now that the Windsor agreement has been reached, I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is ample opportunity to have a constructive working relationship with the European Union. In light of that, and for the sake of struggling British businesses, may I ask the Minister whether she will finally get behind Labour’s proposals for a bespoke veterinary agreement on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and for a memorandum of understanding on regulatory co-operation for our financial services?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and I urge her to get behind our trade and co-operation agreement. As I say, it is the world’s largest zero-tariff, zero-quota deal. I am delighted to say that the Chief Secretary has just confirmed that we have signed the memorandum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Hunt]

My hon. Friend is right. We have a very good solution to the Silicon Valley bank issue with the HSBC takeover. In the long run, we would like our brilliant tech superstar companies to have more choice about how they finance their expansion, and we will bring forward plans to make sure that happens.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister said to me in her response that the Chief Secretary had just confirmed with her that we had signed the memorandum of understanding on regulatory co-operation with the EU. Could you please advise me whether she meant that both sides had signed and the agreement has been secured with the EU? I cannot find the details anywhere. Can you advise me where MPs are able to see the agreement?

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I can confirm that we have always been ready to sign the MOU, from two years ago—[Interruption.] Well, we have made it very clear to the EU that we are ready to sign. It is a matter for it to come to the table, and we very much hope it will be able to do that. What happened was that as the Financial Secretary came to the Dispatch Box she did not quite hear exactly what I said, and for that I apologise on behalf of the Government. It was my fault.

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

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2023 General Committees

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The Labour party is completely committed to tackling economic crime. We welcomed the economic crime levy when it was first announced and we will support the regulations today. I want to raise a few questions and concerns with the Minister; they relate to the scope, effectiveness and transparency of the levy.

First, while the increase in funding provided by the levy is welcome, is the Minister confident that it will generate the necessary step change in economic crime enforcement? For example, as Spotlight on Corruption has highlighted, although it is called the economic crime levy, in reality it only covers money laundering. That means that the funds will not be invested in fighting other forms of economic crime such as corruption, fraud and sanctions evasion.

As the Minister may have seen, Transparency International has proposed that the Treasury re-invest the money recovered in the fight against economic crime, such as money seized by the Serious Fraud Office through its deferred prosecution agreement fines, back into enforcement to tackle fraud, corruption and money laundering. What assessment has the Minister made of that recommendation?

On accountability and transparency, the Government have failed to publish any information on what proportion of the funds will be assigned to law enforcement and how the effectiveness of the levy will be measured against enforcement outcomes. I hope the Minister can shed some light on that today. I would also be grateful if he provided clarity on how the Treasury will ensure full accountability of how the levy is used, and how decisions on resource allocation will be made.

Cash Acceptance

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for bringing this important and timely debate to the House—I do not think it is necessary to be of a certain age to appreciate how important it is. Last year alone, there was a net loss of 797 banks and financial services shops providing cash and other services, while the latest Bank of England data, from July 2022, found that 35% of people have encountered a shop that does not accept cash. That should concern us all. I have had lots of representation from constituents in Hampstead and Kilburn who have found shops that will not accept cash, which has proven to be a real problem, as we have heard from Members across the House today. According to a recent report from the Royal Society of Arts, 10 million people depend on cash, and the pandemic, which saw an acceleration in the digitisation of payment services, has made it increasingly difficult for many to pay for the goods and services they need.

We know that a massive 3.8 million people in financial difficulty and 15 million people in total use cash for budgeting purposes. The need to protect cash services is only growing in importance, with data collected by the Post Office showing that the use of cash has risen in recent months. As the cost of living crisis deepens, the poorest in society are increasingly turning to cash, as has been reiterated many times in this debate, to manage their budgets on a week-by-week basis, and often day by day.

Of course, Labour welcomes the fact that the Financial Services and Markets Bill, on which the Minister and I both worked, and which is currently in the other place, will finally introduce protections for access to cash. However, we are worried that the Bill has some serious gaps: it fails to even mention cash acceptance, makes no commitment to protect free access to cash—something that Labour is concerned about—and does nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services, on which the most vulnerable in our society depend for financial advice and support.

According to data collected by the consumer group Which?, there has been a notable decline in the provision of free-to-use ATMs in recent years. In January 2023, there were 12,000 fewer free-to-use ATMs in the UK than in August 2018—a huge decrease of nearly 24%. Does the Minister agree that with the poorest in society increasingly reliant on cash, forcing them to pay for access in the midst of the worst cost of living crisis on record risks further deepening financial exclusion in this country? Will he take action to address the problem? Which? has warned that if the Government do not make clear that their Bill will protect free cash withdrawals and deposits for consumers,

“the entire objective of…the Bill will be undermined.”

Cash acceptance is fundamental to securing the future of cash. There is little point in the most vulnerable having access to cash if they have nowhere to spend it. That is why the Labour party tabled an amendment to the Bill when it was in the Commons, which would have placed a duty on the FCA to collect data on cash acceptance. My colleagues in the House of Lords have been pushing the Government to empower the FCA to monitor and report on levels of cash acceptance across the UK. In his response, the Minister will likely say that we have to wait for the Government’s access to cash policy statement. If so, can he confirm when the statement will be published? Does he also agree that if his Government are committed to protecting the future of cash, there is no reason not to make protections for free access and an FCA remit on cash acceptance explicit in the Bill?

I want to turn briefly to the important and connected issue of protecting face-to-face banking services, which has been mentioned a few times in this debate. Again, analysis by Which? found that over half of the UK’s bank branches have closed since 2015. Additionally, at least 263 branches are expected to close by the end of the year. That will cut off countless people from essential services—I know that from listening to constituents in Hampstead and Kilburn.

Age UK has called for the Financial Services and Markets Bill to be amended to protect the in-person services that older people rely on, such as opening new accounts or applying for a loan, to ensure that banking services can meet their needs. It is not only older people who will struggle without support. Natalie Ceeney does amazing work and has already been mentioned. As chair of UK Finance’s Cash Action Group, she warned in evidence to the Public Bill Committee that there is significant overlap between the people who rely on access to cash—around 10 million UK adults—and those who need face-to-face support. She said,

“every time I meet a community, the debate goes very quickly from cash to banking. It all merges. The reason is we are talking about the same population.”––[Official Report, Financial Markets and Services Public Bill Committee, 19 October 2022; c. 49, Q98.]

She is completely right. It is the most vulnerable, people from deprived socioeconomic backgrounds and the older parts of society who rely on the extra face-to-face help, such as making or receiving payments or dealing with a standing order. Those are the people who will be left behind if the banking question is left unaddressed.

We also should not forget those without the digital skills needed to bank online, people in rural areas with poor internet connections, and the growing number of people who are simply unable to afford to pay for data or wi-fi as the cost of living crisis deepens. That is why I tabled amendments to the Bill that would give the FCA the powers it needs to protect essential in-person banking services. The Government did not vote for my proposal, but it is not too late for the Government to support the amendments in the Lords.

To be clear, we are not calling for banks to be prevented from closing branches that are no longer needed—far from it. Access to face-to-face services could be delivered through a shared banking hub or other models of community provision. We recognise that it is inevitable that payment and banking systems will continue to innovate. That is a good thing—online banking is a far more convenient way for people to manage their finances—but we have to ensure that the digital revolution that we are talking about does not further deepen financial exclusion in this country, and that will require protecting face-to-face services and putting in place a proper strategy for digital inclusion.

Banking hubs or other models of community provision will have to be part of the solution. Those spaces have the potential to tackle digital exclusion through their dedicated staff who can teach people how to bank online and provide internet access for those without it. However, only four banking hubs have been delivered, out of the underwhelming 38 promised. To ensure that no one is left behind, these services need to be protected in legislation.

If the Government are serious about securing the future of cash, they must listen to all the concerns raised both today and by many of their own Back Benchers during the Financial Services and Markets Bill debate. They must empower the FCA to monitor cash acceptance and protect free access to cash. I hope the Minister will be able to commit to that today, listen to the concerns voiced in this debate, and take heart from the fact that there are so many people in the Gallery who obviously care passionately about this important issue.

Silicon Valley Bank

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving me advance sight of his statement today. Labour welcomes the announcement by HSBC that it will be buying the UK arm of Silicon Valley Bank, or SVB UK, in a rescue deal. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), said over the weekend, the UK life sciences and tech sectors play an indispensable role in driving growth and innovation across the economy.

Now that those who bank with SVB UK have some certainty, the Government should examine how we got here in the first place. For example, when SVB UK was granted a separate banking licence last year, what assessment did the Treasury and Bank of England make of the significant liquidity risks arising from its deposit base being a small number of high-value corporate deposits?

The effects of the collapse of SVB are still being felt across the UK market and the Minister said in his statement that HSBC’s purchase of SVB has “supported confidence” in the UK financial system. What assessment has he made of the fact that London’s FTSE 100 was down today, while the UK bank index fell by almost 5% this morning and by more than 10% over the weekend? What will the disruptions in the banking sector mean for confidence, the wider economy and the ability of high-growth companies to access the credit that they need to thrive?

The Minister also said that disruption in the tech sector has been “forestalled”, but what reassurance can he provide today that, under HSBC’s ownership, the bank will continue to be able to support early-stage tech and life sciences businesses in the UK? He also said that HSBC has been given an exemption from certain ring-fencing requirements. Will that be a permanent exemption?

Perhaps the most important question, I am sure the Minister will agree, is this: how can we avoid this happening again? With inflation at record levels, the Bank of England has had to take steps to tackle rising prices, but Ministers must make an assessment of the risk that sharp changes to UK interest rates might pose to our financial system. It is time for the Government to launch a systemic review of the risks that sharply rising interest rates pose to the UK financial sector, and I hope the Chancellor will return to the House having made that assessment.

Finally, the events of this weekend further underline the importance of ensuring that UK start-ups have access to the patient capital that they need to grow, as proposed by the Labour party’s start-up review. I hope that the Minister will return to the House soon to update us with a broader assessment of the risks to the financial sector arising from sharply increasing rates, and with a plan to address the longer-term problems holding back growth and the provision of patient capital to our growing businesses.

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

We on the Labour Benches fully recognise the importance of achieving the best possible value for our taxpayers. I remind the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and everyone who has spoken in support of the Bill, however, that the Government introduced a public sector exit payment cap in 2020 and it did not work. The cap failed to provide value for the taxpayer, it had numerous unintended consequences, and it adversely affected dedicated, long-serving public servants who earned relatively low salaries, often less than £25,000 a year. Indeed, due to those failings, in March 2021—less than a year after introducing the regulations—the Government were forced to U-turn and revoke the cap.

Let me take each failing in turn. First, far from saving taxpayers money, the cap produced additional costs. Because the regulations treated payments under a settlement agreement, but not employment tribunal awards, as an exit payment, they created a perverse incentive for people to go to tribunal. An employment tribunal is a time-consuming and costly legal process for a public sector employer to go through, and I remind hon. Members that that cost is passed on to the taxpayer.

Secondly, the cap had other unintended consequences—for example, it did not take into account an individual pension contribution, so through no fault of their own, long-serving staff over the age of 55 who were facing redundancy were hit by the regulations. They were obliged to take their pension if they lost their job, so their final exit payment, when combined with their redundancy pay, could easily exceed the £95,000 cap under the regulations.

Finally, when they introduced the cap, the Government initially said that the regulations were designed to prevent large exit payments to so-called public sector fat cats, but in reality the cap hit low-paid workers hardest. Long-serving local government workers, who earned as little as £23,000, were pulled into the cap when their pensions were taken into account.

All that was foreseen by public sector unions, including Unison, Unite, GMB, Prospect and the Public and Commercial Services Union, when the cap was first proposed, but Ministers refused to listen. The unions were left with no choice but to take the Government to judicial review, which wasted more time and more taxpayers’ money, before the Government finally admitted that the cap had unintended consequences and should be revoked.

The Labour party will therefore not support the Bill today. I advise the Government to do the same to avoid further embarrassment.

High Income Child Benefit Charge

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am covering for my colleague who cannot be here today because of a constituency commitment. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for bringing forward a really important debate today. He spoke compassionately about his constituents, who are clearly struggling, and I applaud him for bringing this matter to the House. He will be pleased to know that Labour always welcomes the opportunity to highlight the significant pressures that families are facing across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency, as the cost of living crisis gets worse.

We have heard how hundreds of thousands more families are being pulled into the high income child benefit charge. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) put it well when he said that a lot of them are not from wealthy families, yet they are still being pulled into that charge. It is sad that hard-working people are having to pay for the chaos caused in recent months, and for 12 years of economic failure.

I want the Minister to explain the fiscal drag of freezing the threshold for the high income child benefit charge. I am sure she will make the case that maintaining the threshold at £50,000 allows the Government to prioritise the majority of families, particularly the poorest households, and that she will talk about difficult choices that have to be made and how taxpayers’ money is best spent. We all agree with that, but the truth is that the current benefits system is not working for anyone, least of all the poorest. A report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last week found that the benefit system is fundamentally “not fit for purpose” and has “trapped” millions of children and families in poverty.

Helping more people into good-quality work must be a priority of social security. Over 1 million people are out of work, despite wanting a job, and yet employers are struggling to fill over 1 million vacancies. I looked at the figures. Employment in the UK is lower now than it was before the pandemic, and the employment rate has had the biggest drop out of the major G7 economies.

A shocking 2.5 million of those who have fallen out of the workforce have done so because of ill health. We know that being out of work is bad for health. The longer someone is out of work for sickness reasons, the more difficult it is for them to return to a job. Unfortunately, it feels like nothing is being done to break that dangerous cycle. We cannot simply write people off. Only 4% of people in the employment and support allowance support group return to work each year. That is a huge waste of the potential of British people, who we know can contribute a lot to the economy.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) wanted to know about Labour’s approach. We would take a very different approach to the benefits system. We would modernise jobcentres, turning them into new hubs that focus on work progression. They would be no longer just a conveyer belt to lower-paid work, but an escalator to well-paid, secure jobs.

I looked at the figures again. Only one in 10 older or disabled people who are out of work are receiving any support to find a job. That is because the Government impose programme after programme on local areas, regardless of their local economic needs. A massive £20 billion is being spent across 49 schemes, administered by nine different Government Departments. Even that statistic sounds so confusing.

The fragmented system is wasting taxpayers’ money and failing to get people into work. In contrast, when some limited local design has been allowed in pockets of the country, such as the inspirational “Working Well” initiative in Greater Manchester, there have been real successes in helping people get back into employment. That is why the Labour party will shift resources and power to the local level and guarantee local innovation in the design and delivery of employment support services.

We also want to address the hindrance to work in the social security system by empowering jobcentres to help to broker flexible working opportunities for those who have caring responsibilities. Crucially, we will reform the Access to Work scheme, for which the waiting list for an assessment has trebled. People now wait months for a decision, and overall the work capability assessment regime leaves too many people trapped in unemployment.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. This is not a high-pressure debate and there is plenty of time, but the title is the high income child benefit charge. I am willing to relax and let the hon. Lady go a bit off-piste, but I think she is wandering quite a long way off the subject of the debate.

[Tulip Siddiq]

Apologies, Mr Stringer. You will be pleased to hear that I am on the last bit of my speech.

I ask the Minister to respond to the specific concerns raised today, especially in relation to the growing number of people pulled into the high income child benefit charge. I sincerely believe we need a proper plan to lift families out of poverty. We need to get our economy growing, and we need to offer opportunities for people in every part of the UK. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am getting no indication that the Minister wants to comment on that, but the fact is that the Speaker has said time and again that he deprecates statements that should be made to the House first being made elsewhere, and I am sure the Minister will take that on board.

I call the shadow Minister.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Opposition support the Bill, particularly the new secondary objectives for regulators on international competitiveness and long-term growth. It is a welcome first step in supporting the City to take advantage of opportunities outside the EU, such as creating a welcoming environment for new financial technologies and incentivising financial services to increase investments in domestic industries through reform of solvency II.

We were delighted when, after much pressure from the Labour party, the Minister decided to drop his dangerous policy of the intervention power. Despite repeated warnings from the Bank of England, business and the Labour party that he should not be putting the UK’s international competitiveness at risk by threatening our system of regulatory independence, the current Minister pushed on and told me it was a good thing. In my eyeline, I can see the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who, when he was the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said to me on Second Reading that it was right for Ministers to be able to intervene in such a way.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

On regulatory independence, notwithstanding the particular call-in power the hon. Lady is describing, would she agree that it is important for the elected Government and this House to be able to set the direction in which regulators are meant to go, and that if the regulators are not going in that direction, this House and the Government should be able to correct the direction they are going in?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I support much of what the hon. Member says, and I will come on to that a little later in my speech, but the call-in power is very different from what he is describing. Time and again, we warned Ministers that this would be detrimental to our regulatory independence, and they did not listen. However, if the hon. Member listens carefully, he will hear, when I come on to the next page of my speech, that I will address the valid points he is making.

In Committee, when I pushed the current Minister on why this dangerous intervention power was necessary, he told me that voices in the industry had told him we needed an “agile and flexible system”, which he claimed could only be brought about by this intervention power. After all of this from the three Economic Secretaries I have shadowed in 10 months, who kept pushing this dangerous intervention power, strangely enough the Government then dropped the policy: I just received an opaque letter, which did not really offer any proper explanation for why this Government have had a change of heart. If you do not mind my saying so, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought about when I got a text from my crush in the sixth form telling me there would be no second date, without his actually telling me face to face why he did not want to see me again. I do wonder why, but I say to the Minister that I am grateful that he listened to the Labour party and has dropped the dangerous intervention power. I only wish he had done it sooner, so we could have saved some unnecessary damage to our global reputation.

While the intervention power was wholly inappropriate, we recognise that the Bill facilitates an unprecedented transfer of responsibilities from retained EU law to the regulators, and this does require democratic accountability. That is why I am glad the Government have listened to the concerns raised by me and others in Committee and have introduced new clause 17, which will allow regulators to be held to account against key metrics.

I hope the Minister will be able to commit to supporting new clause 10, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), to further strengthen the democratic accountability of regulators.

I was absolutely delighted that the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) was following my speeches at the Labour party conference so closely, where again and again I made the case for a new form of regulated personalised guidance. She has tabled new clause 11, which would create the space to do that, and I hope the Government will support her new clause.

[Mr Baron]

I hope the hon. Lady’s ex-crush realises what he has missed, but may I briefly pick up the point about democratic accountability when it comes to supervision of the regulators? I suggest that those regulators need to heed the advice of the professional bodies working in the sector. I raise again the issue of investment trusts. We have the Association of Investment Companies and many others saying that key information documents—a well-intentioned but misguided legacy of misguided EU regulation—are actually assessing risk incorrectly, to the detriment of investors. They are saying that now, and the FCA has control, yet we do not seem to be doing much about it. We are not making much progress on this issue, and meanwhile investors are being misled. Would she agree that we need to listen to the trade bodies as well?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I always want to listen to experts such as the trade bodies. The hon. Member has a wealth of knowledge in this area, and I accept what he is saying. Overall, the Labour party agrees with a lot of the policies in this Bill, which is why we have given it our wholehearted support. There are some missed opportunities that we feel could have been taken, and I think we could have strengthened our attractiveness for investments, as he is saying—I will come on to that later in my speech. I take his point, which is well made, and I hope the Minister will listen and will respond to it in his summing up.

Turning to my own amendments, I am worried about the lack of ambition in the Bill on strengthening fraud prevention. My new clause 1 would introduce the first national fraud strategy and data sharing arrangement for a decade. The National Audit Office, in its recent report, said that the Government simply do not understand the full scale of the fraud epidemic, despite the NAO calling for rapid action over five years ago. That is a damning statement. UK Finance has found that the Government’s failure to act on the fraud strategy and data sharing has seen the amount of money stolen from hard-working families’ and businesses’ bank accounts through fraud and scams hit a record high of £1.3 billion.

Despite that, in Committee, the Minister urged me to withdraw my new clause on the matter. He told me to be patient, and he told me that there would be a fraud strategy before Christmas. Now he is saying there will be one early next year, but how can we trust him not to kick the can further down the road? So I will be holding the Minister to account. There are only 24 days left until the end of the year, and people whose lives have been ruined by fraudsters cannot afford to be patient any longer.

Following our debate in Committee, leaders from across the financial services sector told me that the Government’s approach of placing data sharing responsibilities on the banks alone was stuck in the last century and allows tech-savvy criminals to get rich at the public’s expense. My new clause would put in place a data sharing arrangement that extends beyond just the banks to include social media companies, crypto-asset firms, payment system operators and other platforms that are exploited by criminals. If the Minister does not listen to the Labour party, I hope he will listen to the National Audit Office, businesses and victims of fraud, and finally give enforcement agencies the powers they need to crack down on criminals by voting for our new clause today. I also hope the Government will support my new clauses 2 and 3 and new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh); because we have spent a substantial amount of time speaking about free access to cash I will not elaborate too much on that, but she has our full support.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that new clause 3, on access to banking, is particularly important? For many disabled and elderly people and others with mobility issues, and indeed for small businesses, access to banking as a whole, as well as access to cash, is hugely important; that has been very evident in my constituency.

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents. I will speak about that later, but I feel that we politicians have a duty on this: even if there has been a decline in the number of people using cash, there is still a small group of vulnerable people who do so, and they risk being excluded if we do not save free access to cash and face-to-face banking services. We have a duty to our vulnerable constituents, disabled constituents and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds who still rely on cash.

[David Mundell]

I fully understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but it is not a small number of people: it was estimated in 2019 that 8 million people across the United Kingdom would struggle without access to cash.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I welcome the fact that the Government have finally announced that they will bring forward access-to-cash legislation, but this Bill does nothing to protect face-to-face banking or free access to cash, which is our main concern and is what the most vulnerable in our society depend on.

Since 2015, on this Government’s watch nearly half of the UK’s bank branches have closed. It is inevitable that banking systems will continue to innovate—no one is denying that—but the failure to protect these services risks leaving millions of people behind. My amendment would empower the Financial Conduct Authority to review communities’ needs for and access to essential in-person banking services. To be clear, I am not saying banks should be prevented from closing underused branches—far from it. I explained this thoroughly in Committee but will say it briefly again now: vital face-to-face services could be delivered through a variety of models, such as shared banking hubs, which are already being set up across the country to provide cash services.

In Committee, the Minister was again very persuasive and convinced me to withdraw my new clause. He said he accepted the underlying need for action and that solutions would be brought to the table. I believed him, but despite warnings from Age UK, Which? and the Access to Cash Action Group—which does fantastic work in this area—that vulnerable people are at risk of being cut off from the services they desperately rely on, the Government have completely failed to engage on this important issue, and this time I will not be making the same mistake: I will not withdraw my new clauses. The Government need to demonstrate they will not simply abandon those who are struggling to bank online.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I want to pledge my support for new clauses 2 and 3. In my constituency we have lost 13 to 15 banks since 2015, and we are more or less wholly reliant now on the Post Office to provide financial services in large parts of north Carmarthenshire. Worryingly, the new deal starting next year only lasts until 2025, and if that were to break down for whatever reason, there would be real issues in many communities.

[Tulip Siddiq]

The hon. Gentleman is right that this is not just about bank branch closures; it is also about pressures in the Post Office. It is possible to provide some of the services through the Post Office, but we have a duty to preserve some of the banking hubs to ensure that the Post Office does not get overwhelmed. I am sure the hon. Gentleman has travelled around his constituency, and anybody who walks around their constituency will see the need for bank branches, banking hubs and post offices for our most vulnerable constituents. I am also surprised that the Bill has so little to say on financial inclusion more broadly, despite my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) flying the flag for financial inclusion with her brilliant amendments.

The co-operative and mutual sector also plays an important role in delivering financial inclusion. The Bill’s measures fall short of the Labour and Co-operative parties’ shared ambition to double the size of that sector in the UK. That is why I have tabled new clauses 4 and 5 requiring the regulators to report on how they have considered mutual and co-operative business models. In Committee, the Minister said that given that appropriate arrangements are already in place for regulators to report, that the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority already produce well combed-through annual reports and that there is no deficiency in the level of engagement with the sector, such a measure is simply unnecessary. The sector was shocked by the Minister’s ill-informed response. It pointed to the FCA’s most recent annual report, published in July, where there is not one mention of the needs of co-operatives, mutuals, building societies or credit unions, while in the latest PRA annual report, building societies are just lumped in with standard banks. Every single business leader that I have spoken to, from Nationwide to the firms represented by the Building Societies Association, have called for the FCA and the PRA to report separately on these specific business models. Either the Minister believes he understands the needs of British mutuals and co-operatives better than the sector itself or he should support my amendments.

What is perhaps most striking, however, is how little the Bill has to say about green finance. Over a year ago, the present Prime Minister promised to make the UK the world’s first green financial centre, but on Monday the CBI warned that the Government are “going backwards” on building a greener economy. CBI director-general Tony Danker said firms need more action from Government on green finance. I therefore hope the Minister will support my new clause 6 requiring the Treasury to publish an updated green finance strategy with a clearly defined green taxonomy, as well as new clause 24 tabled by the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) introducing greater protections against deforestation. The Minister has said he is going to produce such a strategy imminently, but we look forward to hearing a timeline, because we are now very suspicious of the word “imminently” and want to hear clear dates and times.

In Committee, the Minister and his Conservative colleagues seemed astounded when I said that the Government and Minister were complacent about green finance. They took such issue with that that I felt I had to provide some evidence in my speech as to why I said it. The Government’s own independent Green Technical Advisory Group told them last month that they had to send a rapid market signal or we would risk falling further behind Europe, which launched its taxonomy back in 2020. In 2020 the Government legislated through a statutory instrument for a legal deadline of 1 January 2023 for the UK to establish the first set of green taxonomy criteria. That is less than a month away, so can the Minister tell me whether he is going to meet his own legal deadline? He is welcome to intervene on me if he thinks he is going to meet it.

The highlight of the Committee stage was when I received an early birthday present from the Minister: he gave me a copy of the “Global Green Finance Index” to read, which I read from cover to cover. It is scintillating. I thank him for the interesting read, but has the Minister read his Government’s own policy document, “Greening Finance”? If not, I have a copy here for him. The report says that the country is committed to consulting on the UK’s green taxonomy in the first quarter of 2022. No one will disagree that we are well beyond the first quarter of 2022. The reason I used the word complacent is that we are dealing with a Government who have missed their own deadlines and their own targets on green finance. If that is not complacency in action on green finance, I do not know what is.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I want to talk about new clause 17, especially in relation to the insurance sector.

The insurance sector is extremely important in my constituency. Insurers and insurance brokers based in Chelmsford are responsible for about 3,000 jobs in my constituency. In addition, Chelmsford is a major commuter city and many more of my constituents commute into London to work in the insurance sector. It is also a very important sector to the UK. The entire UK insurance industry accounts for 4% of our national GDP. The sector brings in an estimated total tax contribution in the region of £16.1 billion, or 2.2% of UK Government tax receipts for 2020. To put it another way, the insurance sector’s tax paid the salaries of every single nurse in the NHS in 2020-21. It is a really important sector and we do not discuss it often enough.

Insurance is also a very international business. Insurers and brokers based in Chelmsford have parent companies in the US, Switzerland, Japan and Australia. All have chosen to be in the UK as a centre for investment, and more international investment means more highly paid jobs supporting not only the City of London but local economies such as those in my constituency and beyond. That investment is under threat. It faces competition from other jurisdictions and the amendments we are debating today will help to show new and existing investors that the UK is open for business. It is a highly competitive global trading environment and London must keep pace with other parts of the world—they want our business. London remains a world-leading speciality insurance market. Three quarters of business booked in the UK comes from outside the UK and London. It is an export-led market. It is not replicated anywhere else in the world.

London retains a lead role thanks to its historical prominence. However, its market share has stagnated in the past decade. The UK needs a renewed focus on competitiveness and growth, and the amendments we are discussing today will help to ensure clear accountability and transparency in how we do that. It is not a theoretical risk that we will lose business to other countries. We have already lost out on new markets, investment and opportunities. Singapore copied the UK’s insurance-linked securities regime, a new form of insurance and risk transfer product. It recognised the quality of the UK’s legislation that this Government introduced in 2017, but when it implemented the regime, the Singapore regulator took a proportionate regulatory approach and that has encouraged many more new entrants. Singapore has approved 18 ILS vehicles in less time than it took the UK to do five. In 2021 alone, the UK lost out on over $700 million of foreign investment in ILS to Singapore, because its regulator is more agile and more proportionate, even though it has the same legislation.

There are also problems in just getting the day-to-day work done. The Bill Committee heard evidence from industry about how the FCA is sometimes taking nine months to authorise a chief executive coming from overseas to operate in the UK. That is just not good enough. I have also been told that not a single new insurance company has been set up in the UK in the last 15 years. Surely that is a clear sign that the UK is risking its position as the world’s leading insurance centre? Businesses face vital choices about where they place capital, income and people. Regulation is a key part of that decision-making process. That is why it is so welcome that the Government are introducing the new secondary objective on international competitiveness and economic growth. It is crucial. This is not a call for a race to the bottom in regulation. High regulatory standards are a strength of the UK system, but regulators across the world, from Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and the EU, are all required to consider international competitiveness, so we should do so, too.

I congratulate the Minister and his officials on their work to date, especially on new clause 17. It is a very welcome recognition from the Government that there is a cultural problem with the regulators, that action is needed on the part of the regulators to address key issues regarding their performance, and that the Government have a key role in holding the regulators’ feet to the fire. The new clause introduces a power over the regulators’ reporting requirements by providing a mechanism through which to direct information to be published, but it is unclear how and in what circumstances His Majesty’s Treasury would use the powers within it. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether he intends to seek a report on the new international competitiveness and growth objective as soon as possible, given that it is a critical new objective for the regulators? Can the Minister also confirm that, in future reporting of the international competitiveness objective, he and other Ministers will impress upon the regulators the need to consider metrics specific to competitiveness, not just domestic competition, and that that must include comparative analysis of our regulators’ performance against competitor jurisdictions, as well as analysis of product and service innovations taking place in key markets?

The new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) go further on proposing a clear reporting criteria for the regulators to follow and on delivering international competitiveness and the growth objective. That would enable Parliament—I am looking at the Chair of the Treasury Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) here—to understand better how the regulators have been performing and the contribution they are making to facilitate our competitiveness and growth. In particular, new clauses 13 and 14 are designed to give the Government powers to require the publication of more performance metrics, including on new applications, authorised entities and persons. They already have some performance criteria, but the new clauses would extend that approach. It does not mean reinventing the wheel. Many are taken from the performance criteria of regulators in competitive jurisdictions. It would not compromise their independence, high standards, financial stability or consumer protection.

New clause 14 would add to the regulators’ authorisation key performance indicators outlined in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It would require them to publish monitoring data related to the determination of authorisations. This is a real issue for many of those acting in financial services. It would reduce the compliance burden for firms that regularly need to give clear applications for approved individuals and would, in turn, promote the openness of the UK for highly skilled talent. I am nearly finished, Mr Deputy Speaker, but there are a few more I want to mention.

New clause 15 would require both the FCA and the PRA to publish an annual report setting out how they facilitated international competitiveness and growth against a range of data and analysis requirements. Instead of allowing the regulators to mark their own homework, it would enable Parliament to understand how the regulators are helping the UK to be more competitive and ensure that they undertake comparative analysis with other jurisdictions.

New clause 16 is targeted at achieving a more proportionate approach to wholesale and retail financial services. Although the regulators have a proportionality principle, it is clearly not working in practice. I have heard time and again from insurers in my Chelmsford constituency and others that the regulators have adopted a one-size-fits-all approach to regulations by treating all financial services, no matter the product or customer, as the same. This means that the regulators in insurance are spending time and effort on over-regulating sophisticated corporate entities with teams of professional advisers, which is really affecting their competitiveness. It would be much better for them to spend that time and effort on protecting individual retail customers, such as our constituents, when they are buying products online or on the high street. The wording of the new clause should be familiar to the Minister’s officials, because it is borrowed from the recommendation for a proportionality principle for all regulators, which was published in June of last year by the Government’s taskforce for innovation, growth and regulating reform.

Amendments 1 to 6 would ensure that the cost-benefit analysis panels are better equipped to undertake the necessary scrutiny of regulators’ work, and would ensure that they are independent from the regulators, that they can publish their recommendations, and that the regulators must respond to those recommendations. Again, this would mean that Parliament, industry and public see the data and avoid a situation in which the regulators are marking their own homework behind closed doors.

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire might not move the amendments, but they are all extremely serious. As I said, the industry makes such an important contribution to the tax income of this country and is key to funding our public services. It would be a tragedy to lose our international competitiveness and an industry that dates back to the Great Fire of London, so let us make sure that the Minister and the Treasury team can take the amendments into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

I again thank my hon. Friend, who did so much work on this Bill. It is absolutely right that the Government keep an open mind to new technologies, and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who is always very thoughtful, talked about this, but we have to understand the risks. While the risks to consumers of scams in the crypto-space, among others, is extremely high and has been well telegraphed, when it comes to looking at different payment systems—with the power of distributed ledger technology to solve issues such as settlement to make our financial markets cleaner, faster and more efficient—it is absolutely right that the Government consider looking at that, and we will be looking to do more in that domain.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the Minister for his response, and he is making encouraging noises about the forward strategy, which I look forward to seeing, but I have not yet heard him mention anything about data sharing. The fact is that frauds and scams have moved on from what they might have been in the past. Is he going to give some indication of whether there will be a data-sharing arrangement that goes beyond just banks and takes into account social media companies, crypto-asset firms and other platforms that criminals are exploiting, because our vulnerable constituents are falling prey to frauds and scams? It is no good just going back to the old ways on frauds and scams—I am sure he understands that—so could I hear a bit more about data sharing, please?

[Andrew Griffith]

He does indeed understand that. We are addressing legal challenges to data sharing in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which will introduce provisions to protect firms from civil liability. As was discussed earlier, it is important to regulate the online world, which my colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport are doing in the Online Safety Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

Despite some of the disappointments in the Bill, which I have outlined to the Minister in great detail, the Opposition support this important piece of legislation, as he will know. It will enable the UK to tailor financial services regulation from insurance to fintech to meet the needs of our economy. At the risk of sounding like an Oscar-winning speech, there are a few people whom I need to thank as well. People will know that, in Opposition, we do not have a whole team of civil servants working behind us. I must thank Mark Hudson in my team, who has worked really hard to make sure that I understand each and every aspect of the Bill. I wish to thank TheCityUK and UK Finance for their help and the Finance Innovation Lab for its advice on the Bill.

I thank, too, Lloyds, Santander, Barclays, HSBC, NatWest and Starling for setting out the dangers posed by the new forms of fraud, and the Building Societies Association and Nationwide for their help with my mutuals and co-operatives amendments. I also thank the Association of British Insurers, Phoenix, the Investment Association, Hargreaves Lansdown and TISA for their help on green finance and personalised financial guidance.

I also want to say thank you to all the Conservative MPs who served on our Committee, which, I think the Minister will agree, was a very good Committee, as we got through quite a lot of detail. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for their support on the Public Bill Committee and for their co-operation as well.

Finally, in my 10 months as shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I have shadowed three Economic Secretaries, all of whom were very helpful when it came to this Bill. Let me just mention them. They are: the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is not in his place right now, but who was very helpful when I first took on the role; the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who is also not in his place; and, of course, the current Minister whom I thank. This is a complex and wide-ranging Bill. The Minister and I spent an enormous amount of time together, but I think he will know that Labour supports both this Bill, and the opportunities for the City to thrive after we leave EU regulations. I hope the Minister knows that, overall, I have enjoyed working with him.

MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING (HIGH-RISK COUNTRIES) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) REGULATIONS 2022

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 General Committees

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary. As the Minister will know, the Opposition are committed to supporting the global effort to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism, and we will support the regulations today. However, I want to raise a couple of concerns about the UK’s compliance with the Financial Action Task Force’s high risk list.

As the Minister said, the regulations will update the UK’s list of high-risk countries, and he outlined those that will be added and those that will be taken off to reflect the changes made by the Financial Action Task Force in October. However, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, would remove the need for parliamentary approval to update the high risk list. Does the Minster believe that it is appropriate to cut out parliamentary scrutiny in that way? I would appreciate an answer if he thinks that that is the right thing to do.

Does the Minister also believe that the UK Government should make its own independent assessment of countries that pose a high risk of money laundering, rather than just mirror the Financial Action Task Force? It is my understanding that there is no legal or practical reason for the UK not to diverge from the Financial Action Task Force and, for example, to add countries we deem to belong on our high risk list.

The Minister will know the fantastic work my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) has done to highlight the dangers of illicit finance. She has proposed creating an additional kleptocurrency list—sorry, kleptocracy list; as the Minister will know, I have cryptocurrency on my mind—alongside the Financial Action Task Force list. That would enable the UK to designate on its own list countries that we think pose a significant threat.

The anti-corruption organisation Spotlight on Corruption has also warned that, despite Pakistan being one of five countries highlighted in the UK’s 2020 national risk assessment as posing a high risk of money laundering, it is now being removed from the list of high-risk countries. Will the Minister elaborate on whether he shares Spotlight on Corruption’s concerns regarding Pakistan? Might there be a case for not simply mirroring the Financial Action Task Force list? Should we instead have our own list so that we can add countries we deem dangerous or corrupt?

As I said, we will support the regulations, but I just want to hear a bit more about the Minister’s thinking as we pass this legislation through Parliament.