Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,779 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Mr Speaker, “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP”— so said the controversial Ulster rap band who remain on the bill at Glastonbury. Given that is the case, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassure the House that no Cabinet Office Ministers will be attending Glastonbury this year?
I did serve in Afghanistan, including with the young major who is now the general that my right hon. and gallant Friend is referring to. He is an outstanding officer with unimpeachable credentials. My right hon. and gallant Friend is making a compelling moral case. I have seen at first hand the risks that those Afghans who supported us on operations faced alongside us, which only increased exponentially when the Taliban took over. We have a very moral case for doing whatever we have to do to fulfil our obligation, and if that means tearing up someone’s bureaucratic rulebook, so be it.
The Minister’s civil servants will be proud of him. I think the point my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) was making was that when the computer says no and the Minister knows that the computer is wrong, does he not have an obligation simply to go away and change the system?
I commend the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate. Like so many places across the country, bank branches have closed at an alarming rate in my constituency. Not so long ago, residents could pop down to a branch of every major high street bank in the towns of Waltham Cross, Cheshunt and Hoddesdon. Just last week, Halifax became the latest bank branch to shut its doors in Waltham Cross, while in Hoddesdon the former site of the Barclays remains empty, a scar on an otherwise vibrant town centre. In my town of Cheshunt, a town of 40,000 people, not a single bank branch remains. That simply cannot be right. The lack of in-person banking facilities is depriving people of access to vital services. For so many older and vulnerable people, it is causing huge difficulty and frustration, as they are forced to rely on digital services such as apps and smartphones.
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is really important that we expand the rules to get banking hubs in more locations across the country. Not least of all, my nan does not do online banking. Every time I go and see her, she badgers me about it. She will specifically bank with someone where she can have face-to-face services, because she will not do online banking. It is a real struggle, because some banks say, “Well, you’ve got to telephone.” But even then, one has to have a smartphone to get a code on the app for security, so it is very difficult for our older and disabled constituents to access those vital services. When Barclays went from the high street in Hoddesdon, it did a “Barclays local”. Through the good work of my Conservative-run Broxbourne council, we managed to get it into the Spotlight, our local theatre, but it is cashless. That is nonsense! Its bread and butter business as a high street bank is to deal with cash and get people access to its cash and banking services, but it wants to run a service that is now cashless. We tried in Cheshunt—as I said, a town of 40,000 people with no banking services—to get the NatWest banking van at the car park of our Laura Trott sports centre, but again it would only offer a cashless service. This is bread and butter to the high street banks. They should accept cash and we should bring forward legislation to ensure that our constituents across the country have access to banking services. We need to look at the rules, because waiting until the last bank is in our high street does not promote consumer choice or solve people’s banking and access to cash needs. On buses, my constituents are lucky if the bus even turns up—we get one bus once an hour—so including public transport in analysis of banking hub locations is unreliable. We need to widen the criteria to enable more banking hubs to be opened up across the country.
I welcome the progress that is being made by IBCA. Of course, the Minister is not directly responsible for how quickly that is rolling out. I note that IBCA has announced that its plan is to prioritise those infected who are still alive; indeed, my constituent Daryn Craik was contacted last week. I suggest that the Minister set up a metric that IBCA could agree to for the time between when people are contacted and when they receive their payment. He could then report that interval back to the House, which would hold IBCA to account on the delivery for these infected people, who have suffered for too long.
At the risk of disappointing the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), I rise not entirely to criticise the banks, which have done tremendous work on apps and the like, and many people—not all of them spring chickens—make great use of them. But as banks retreat from bricks and mortar locations, a problem is that even silver surfers who are comfortable with the technology may simply not be able to get the relevant app to work. In rural Dumfries and Galloway, we have too many notspots, where the mobile phone signal is sketchy at best and non-existent at worst. Similarly, there is a lack of decent broadband. The ground truth is that while it might be easy-PC for some to get online, sclerotic broadband and thick stone walls designed to keep out the Scottish damp make too many computers and smartphones expensive placemats. The need for access to face-to-face banking services remains high, as we have heard. As we have also heard, there are numerous issues with the current banking hub regime. Take Wigtown in my constituency: it is Scotland’s official book town, yet the current banking hub criteria fail to capture the significance of that. Wigtown is evaluated on its modest resident population, with no account taken of the huge influx of visitors when its famous book festival opens its covers. I have a stream of reports of the town centre cash machine running out of spondulicks outwith the festival and anecdotal reports of people gathering for a trip to the nearest hub in Newton Stewart to lift their pensions. That hub is 12 miles distant, and notwithstanding our positively balmy climate in Dumfries and Galloway—no, really—it is not walkable. As for the public transport system, let us just say that we need a calendar and not a stopwatch to time the buses. When Dalbeattie, the third biggest town in my constituency with a population of more than 4,000 souls and a slew of thriving businesses, struggles to get a banking hub, surely there is a compelling case for lowering the threshold for hubs. I accept that we cannot have an ethos of “wherever two or three are gathered, there shall be a banking hub”, yet equally, we cannot expect one ATM to carry the banking needs of hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Banking has come on in leaps and bounds since the days of little pens chained to counters and limited opening hours, but on balance, too many people are being left behind in the technological revolution. American banker Felix Rohatyn, who rescued New York from financial disaster, said: “banking is not simply about profit, but about personal relationships.” Even in this digital age, we need to capture some of that spirit via our banking hubs.
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for giving way on that point. Is this not a case of the old adage that rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools? Are we not seeing a punctilious following of rules here, when a man’s life is at risk?
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Turner. Amendment 97 is objectively reasonable; the Government, in setting up the independent football regulator, should want to do so in compliance with any FIFA or UEFA rules, in order to secure our national teams’ places in international tournaments. There is a genuine risk that the football regulator may conflict with FIFA and UEFA rules, not least in the political appointment of its chair. I know that the Government do not think that it is political to appoint a chair who, in the current circumstances, donated to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign, but FIFA may take a different view. If FIFA takes a different view and seeks to ban our national sides, the Government will not be able to do anything about it. This is the moment to enshrine in law that the regulator must comply with FIFA and UEFA rules. We can delve briefly into what we think FIFA might deem political. In 2016, FIFA fined domestic teams, including England, for wearing an armband with an Armistice Day poppy because, in FIFA’s view, the poppy is a political symbol. I think that is madness, and pretty much everyone in this country thinks it is madness, but that was FIFA’s view, and it levied a fine. I think that, after negotiation, FIFA has since changed its mind—but if that was its view of the poppy and all sorts of symbols that most ordinary people would not think of as political, I am concerned about what it will think about a football regulator that has a chair appointed by Government, who in this instance also donated to the leadership campaign of the Prime Minister of the day, and who may then exercise a decision over ownership of a particular club in this country. I suspect FIFA may think that is political and conflicts with the ability of England and other home nations to compete in international events. The Government can deal with that very simply.
No. The football regulator is not set up—unless the Government view otherwise—to decide what symbols the England national team wear on their arms. It is set up for all sorts of things such as financial viability and ownership models of teams within the English leagues. My point is about how FIFA views political interference and political symbols. It is clearly very sensitive to them and has a very high bar. I am concerned that, if the football regulator breaches that bar, England will be restricted from entering international tournaments. The Government will not be able to do anything about it at that point, but they can deal with it now by mandating the football regulator to comply with FIFA and UEFA rules. The football regulator will not be responsible for symbols on football shirts.
The hon. Lady and I can debate all day what we think is political and our recollection of what FIFA has ruled or not ruled in the past. However, that is not relevant, because she and I will have no decision-making authority over the football regulator once the Bill is passed. It would be much better that we build into the system a requirement for the regulator to comply with FIFA and UEFA rules, whatever they may be, to secure the future of our domestic football teams in international tournaments.
No, I do not accept that. All the amendment does is to seek the compliance of the football regulator, which this Government are trying to set up, with the major international governing bodies—FIFA and UEFA. Any arguments about political interference and political symbols and how decisions on them are made will be a matter for FIFA, UEFA, the FA and the regulator, but we should want to ensure that the regulator is required not to do anything that conflicts with the rules of FIFA and UEFA.
I, and I suspect a lot of fans, would not be comfortable if there was a negotiation between FIFA and the Government—by the way, the current Secretary of State received money from the current preferred candidate—about the viability of the England national team playing in an international tournament, when what they were negotiating about was the suitability or decision making of a political donor to that Government. That is not healthy. It does not satisfy me. I would much prefer that there was a provision in the Bill that clearly stated that the football regulator—that is more than just the chair; it is the entire body—must not do anything that “conflicts with any regulations or rules of international football governing bodies”. By the way, this is about far more than just politics; I use the political issue as an example, but there are many other ways in which the regulator could conflict with FIFA and UEFA. I am sure that nobody here intends that it does, so let us build that into the Bill.
I agree with the shadow Minister. I suppose there is a not-too-fanciful theoretical situation in which the football regulator makes a decision on the ownership of a club that has otherwise qualified for the Champions League, and that decision was made by a body headed up by someone who had donated to the Prime Minister of the country. I think that that would be a problem. However, if clause 7 were amended, he would have to recuse himself, or the body would have to deal with it in a different way. My hon. Friend demonstrates perhaps the most likely scenario and the most powerful justification for backing the amendment. I urge all Members to do so.
I thank the Minister for seeking to provide clarification. Can she clarify what would happen in the scenario posed by the hon. Member for Cheltenham? If a club such as Manchester City were to negotiate a TV rights deal abroad, and it was a very good deal, should the football regulator have any role in seeking to redistribute that money in any circumstances?
Once again, I am going to refuse the temptation to make a political point about back-of-a-fag-packet calculations by the Liberal Democrats. This amendment does not provide a get-out for clubs to blame the regulator for putting their ticket prices up. They could do that anyway. Clubs can, if they want, try to blame the regulator, regardless of whether the regulator has a power or a compulsion to assess its own impact on ticket prices. What the amendment seeks to do is just add a layer of transparency. Of course, it is up to the regulator to make its own assessment of its impact on ticket prices, and it may be that its assessment is that it has had a negligible effect. However, it seems entirely reasonable, in the interests of transparency, to compel the regulator to nevertheless make this assessment. At the end of the day, we should all be here in the interests of one group of people only—the fans—and it would be a great shame, indeed worse than that, if the regulator were to increase the cost of match tickets, which are already very high.
I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member is seeking to do, but I am slightly concerned that perhaps he rolled over before he even rose to his feet, and will not press his amendment to a Division.
I appreciate that we have a situation where one of the Minister’s Back Benchers is seeking assurances in this Committee, but does she accept that is not the equivalent of having something written into the Bill? With the greatest respect, if it is not in the Bill, her assurances here on what she expects from the football regulator is only her expectation—it is nothing more certain.
rose—
It is a fundamental principle of lawmaking that, when interpreting the law, judges or anyone else do not go and look at what a Minister might have said in Hansard. I appreciate that she may have a long career, but the Minister will change at some point, and the law has to stand, potentially, for a very long time.
I am a lawyer!
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. The shadow Minister, as ever, is a strong advocate for the fans and has set out a compelling case for supporting the amendment. I will not rehash all the arguments, but it is about transparency and reporting—indeed, the clause that the amendment seeks to change is about reporting. Clearly, the Government believe that an annual report should be made or that would not be provided for in the Bill. The report must include a “summary of the activities” undertaken by the regulator, with reference to a financial year, and yet there is nothing about that report’s including the financial impact, which would be fairly usual in a report by any organisation compelled to do one year on year in the interests of transparency. We debated amendment 122 earlier, and that was more specifically about the impact of the regulator’s activity on match ticket prices. I recall that one of the Liberal Democrat Members did not support that on the basis that the cost of administering the regulator would, if divided up as on his fag packet between match tickets and clubs, add up to a small amount. Amendment 134 is much more compelling because it is about the cumulative impact of the costs of complying with the regulatory regime. It could be the case that the actual budget of the regulator remained reasonably contained, while the regulation that the regulator creates and its obligations on football clubs could balloon. In my view, that is why the regulator should be compelled each year to include in the report the financial impact of its regulation and the full range of its activities, in so far as they have an implication for football clubs. If it creates a regulatory burden and hence a cost burden on clubs, there will always be the worry that that will be passed on to fans. Whether an individual member of the Committee believes that the regulator is a good thing, or that the cost is bearable, and whatever their view on how much cost is bearable, at the very least the regulator should be reporting this each year, so that the public and Members in this place in the future can form their views. This is a basic argument about transparency, and no one should seek to assist the regulator in not being transparent in financial matters. For that reason, I will back the amendment.
The shadow Minister has already set out in great but necessary detail the reasons why amendments 99 and 100 have been tabled and should be supported. The issue is that subsections (3)(c) and (5)(b) of clause 16 provide a catch-all that allows the regulator to include such other information and documentation as it may specify when a club applies for a provisional operating licence. I support these amendments because I think those two provisions open the floodgates unnecessarily, and clause 16 already sets out the things that the regulator wants to see football clubs submit. To have that completely open floodgate is a problem for the reasons given. If the Government were keen to have some flexibility here, they could have allowed the Secretary of State to specify any other such information in the future. At least there would then be some accountability via the Secretary of State’s being an elected person and ultimately accountable to Parliament. The particular issue here is that the regulator, once set up, does not have direct accountability, and therefore it would be easy for it to start stipulating all sorts of things. I support the amendments and I think that it should be tight, but the Government could have steered a halfway course here by retaining some powers for the Secretary of State, rather than the unelected regulator.
I welcome the Minister’s words on wanting a more joined-up Government, but I have concerns that the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are not working well enough together both generally and specifically on cross-Solent transport to the Isle of Wight. Will he encourage better joint working between those Departments, both generally and specifically for that most important issue for my constituents where clearly Local Government and Transport need to work together to create regulation to improve passenger experience?
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
Today has a great double significance. As the House may know, it is World Environment Day, when we celebrate the natural world and recommit ourselves as a Parliament to seek to protect it; and it is also the putative date of birth of Adam Smith, one of my great heroes, who did as much as anyone has ever done to explain the world in which we live. If I may move from the sublime to the sublimely incompetent, this week has otherwise been one disaster after another for the Government. On Monday, we had to drag the Leader of the House to the Dispatch Box yet again, and she had to apologise—yet again—for the Government’s flagrant disregard for this House of Commons in briefing out the strategic defence review over the weekend. There is no more important issue than the defence of the realm. It is a UK-wide, long-term, all-party matter and has always been treated as such, yet the Government chose to share the document not only with their friends in the media, but with the industry, at least six hours before it came to this Chamber or to Opposition parties. It is a matter of deep embarrassment for the Government and raises serious questions about the private sharing of financially sensitive information. The Leader of the House and the Defence Secretary are both honourable people, and I have no doubt that she has made the case every week in Cabinet for doing such communications properly. It is just extraordinary that these two members of the Cabinet are being hung out to dry every week by the 12-year-olds in 10 Downing Street. You could have granted an urgent question every single day this week, Mr Speaker, such has been the deluge of important announcements prematurely made outside this House. Today, it is free school meals. Yesterday, it was the reannouncement of Northern Rail spending. The only mitigating factor is that the Government have been so incompetent in handling their slow-motion U-turn on the winter fuel allowance that no one has noticed anything else—though we still await a statement to the House on that issue as well. What about the strategic defence review itself? We should start by thanking the reviewers for their hard work over many months. I know everyone in this House will want to do that, but if we look at the hard substance of the review, matters become more difficult. First of all, many of the announcements largely repeat the decisions of previous Governments—for example, on submarines, on AUKUS and on warheads. Secondly, and most crucially, where is the funding? Government Ministers have tied themselves in knots over the last few days as to whether the 3% of GDP target is “an ambition”, an aim, or simply to be undertaken “when fiscal circumstances allow” or “in the next Parliament”. Luckily, General Richard Barrons, one of the SDR reviewers, was more honest, saying that the SDR’s financial profile—the assumptions against which the reviewers were working—assumed that defence will get 2.5% of GDP in financial year 2027-28 and 3% of GDP by no later than 2034. The great irony is that, not three weeks from now, we will have the NATO summit, which will call not for 3%, but for 3.5% plus 1.5%. We are light years away from that commitment. The awful truth is that real money will not begin to flow into the armed forces until the defence industrial strategy and the defence investment plan are announced later this year, hopefully in the proper way to this House. That will be 15 months after the Government took office. It is lucky that we do not have a war in Europe. Thirdly, where is the threat to our adversaries? No extra cash means no extra commitment, no commitment means no credibility and no credibility means no increased sense of threat to those we face. What do we know? We know that there is a war in Europe in which Russia is moving men and matériel not merely to push on in Ukraine, but to threaten the Baltic states. Ukraine had a glorious victory in the past few days, but we cannot rely on such victories, and we must support it in its struggle against Russia. What do we know? We know that Xi Jinping has directed the People’s Liberation Army to develop the capability to invade Taiwan by 2027, and we know that NATO allies, who have a collective responsibility to each other, in some cases have a long way to go before they are even at 2% of GDP, let alone 3.5%. Instead of giving real leadership, and putting cash on the table, our own Government are talking about readying the country for war while in reality they continue to dither and delay.
I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this debate. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, the situation is stark. Although I welcome the fact that we have secured a temporary banking hub in The Shed, in Bordon, on the Hampshire side, it rapidly needs to have a permanent location. In Liphook, there is no banking hub, no agreed plan and no clear process for securing one. Across the border in Surrey, in Haslemere, we are fortunate to have one of the 100 national hubs up and running, but in nearby Farnham, Barclays has just gone and Santander goes next month. All this means that more than 100,000 people across my constituency have not a single bank and only one building society. Constituents are right to be concerned. Link, the UK’s main cash access body, has stated that Santander’s closure will have, “no significant impact on the community”. I strongly disagree; it absolutely will. This cannot continue to be a postcode lottery. Banks were once embedded in towns and communities but now they are being erased with little left behind. Banking hubs are a partial answer, but the system needs reforms. The process is slow, the criteria too narrow and the scope of services too limited. Hubs must be located centrally, open five or six days a week, accessible to those with limited mobility and reachable without a car. They should serve both individuals and small businesses and, crucially, offer face-to-face banking, not just cash points and machines.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a very convincing point. When we are dealing with something as vital as personal finances, it should not be too much to demand to see a person face to face. The legislation we rely on to manage access to banking, including the Financial Services and Markets Act, remains focused almost exclusively on access to cash, not access to banking services. That distinction matters. Depositing takings, seeking support with financial abuse and getting advice are all services that cannot be delivered by a machine. Even when residents are confident and willing to bank online, they are often held back by something much simpler: their connection. In many parts of my constituency, mobile coverage and broadband access are so poor that digital banking is unreliable, if not impossible. The digital divide is no longer just a social challenge but a financial one too. Older people, disabled people, rural residents and small businesses all deserve access to a banking system that works for them, not just for those who are already digitally fluent or living in better-connected areas. That means that physical services, in-person advice and real access to cash must remain part of the infrastructure of modern life. Will the Minister work with Link, Cash Access UK and local authorities to accelerate the roll-out of banking hubs? Will she expand the remit of the Financial Services and Markets Act to protect access to full banking services, not just to cash? Finally, will she meet me to discuss how we can support the roll-out of permanent, accessible banking hubs in Liphook and Farnham? No one should be excluded from essential financial services because of their postcode, their age, or the strength of their wi-fi signal.
The number of banks that have left my constituency has driven me mad: in the 336 square miles of Mid Buckinghamshire, only one high street bank is left standing. One of the most absurd things that I have heard multiple banks say over the years is: “Oh, but there’s a bank just a few miles away.” That might be technically true on Google Maps, but to pick somewhere close to my constituency entirely at random—I see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in her place—in High Wycombe it takes an enormous amount of time compared with how it looks on Google Maps to get into the town centre and back again. If one bit of the criteria needs to change, it is that banks should not be able just to say, “Oh, there’s a bank a few miles away.” They need to look at the time it takes in real life to get from a village to a nearby town.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) on bringing forward this important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it, because this is a matter of considerable concern to the many rural communities in the Mid Buckinghamshire constituency, particularly given the safety risks posed by battery energy storage systems. Let me be clear from the outset: this is a debate not about the principle of energy storage, although I am in principle opposed to such schemes taking agricultural land and challenging our food security, but about—and this is deeply concerning and the House must urgently address it—the real, growing and too often overlooked safety implications of these installations, particularly when placed in close proximity to villages and rural road networks that are ill-equipped to support them. The most pressing risk, and one that has already led to devastation elsewhere, is the danger of thermal runaway, as others have said. These are not hypothetical risks; they are documented, real-world events. In Merseyside, a fire at a battery site in 2020 caused an explosion that shook nearby homes and required a major emergency services response. In Arizona, a BESS fire led to an explosion that seriously injured eight firefighters, and in Belgium, a BESS fire burned for over a week and forced the evacuation of nearby businesses. These systems contain highly reactive lithium-ion batteries. When one cell fails—often due to manufacturing defects, overheating or damage—it can cause a chain reaction across the entire installation, releasing toxic gases, generating intense heat and creating a fire that cannot be extinguished with conventional methods. In rural areas, where response times may be slower and firefighting resources more limited, the consequences could be catastrophic. In my constituency of Mid Buckinghamshire, we are increasingly seeing applications for these industrial-scale storage sites in rural settings near homes, farms, schools, conservation areas, watercourses and rivers. These are often justified in the name of green energy, but residents rightly ask: green for whom and safe for whom? It is not just the risk of fire; the cumulative impact of associated infrastructure—substations, cabling, transformer enclosures —often means miles of narrow rural roads being torn up by heavy goods vehicles, with lasting safety implications. Roads that were never designed for such weight and volume are left with potholes, uneven surfaces and subsidence. For local motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders, or schoolchildren walking along rural lanes, this poses a daily and wholly unnecessary danger. I have received multiple reports from parish councils, residents and emergency services who are concerned that the access routes used for construction and maintenance of these sites are not fit for purpose. My constituents in the Claydons and in Little Missenden are at risk from convoys of lorries, with junction visibility reduced, verges destroyed and road surfaces degraded if BESS projects planned for those areas go ahead. Should an emergency arise at the site itself, one has to ask: would a fire engine or ambulance even be able to reach it safely and quickly? Could the fire service even attempt to deal with such a fire? That is why I am pleased that Buckinghamshire Council rejected a 500 MW site in the Claydons last year. I trust that other speculative developers, such as the one planning a site just outside Little Missenden, will take note and spare my constituents from these unacceptable fire risks and road safety risks. We must take a more precautionary approach. At the very least, the Government should introduce clear national guidelines on the siting of BESS installations, including minimum separation distances from residential properties, fire resilience standards, mandatory site-specific risk assessments, and restrictions on placing these facilities on or near rural roads. I urge the Government and local planning authorities to take these concerns seriously. Safety must never be sacrificed on the altar of speed or ideology, or the first technology that happens to be on the shelf that day. Our rural communities in particular deserve better protection.
When the Minister is moving civil service jobs outside London, may I remind him that there is much more to the north than just Manchester and Leeds? Why are the Government moving the Information Commissioner’s Office away from Wilmslow to Manchester, and what assessment has been done of the impact of that move on the economy of Wilmslow?
I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for his persistence, for securing this debate and for the work he has done and is doing to get banks back on the high street. Perhaps we should be grateful to the bankers, because, by their actions, they are the only group of people less popular than politicians. Unfortunately, in their endeavour to become the most unpopular people in the country, they are doing huge damage to our local communities. To put that in context, since 2010 more than 10,000 banks have closed across the country, and there are now only 3,000 bank branches left open in this country. In fact, we have more chance of finding a Labour voter on a farm than we have of seeing a bank in a rural community. The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington rightly pointed out that the loss of banking facilities has left vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and the disabled, particularly affected and financially excluded. So too are residents in rural areas, where internet access is poor and unreliable. People struggle to get on to the internet to do transactions or for any customer assistance, yet banks continue to withdraw physical services from their customers. When we walk down most high streets, we see that banks have become cafés, bars and pubs. I will focus my attention on Tatton and my local high streets, because the scale of the closures there is stark. In Knutsford, we have lost Santander, Barclays, NatWest, Lloyds and HSBC since 2018, and only Nationwide building society remains. Knutsford is a prosperous town with more than 1,000 businesses operating locally; there is high demand for banking services, yet they have closed their doors. In Wilmslow, the Royal Bank of Scotland and TSB have closed, with only Halifax and NatWest remaining, which are also going to close. That means that only Santander and Nationwide will remain. In Alderley Edge and Handforth, there are no branches at all, forcing residents to travel long distances.
I agree—the lack of banks is a disgrace. Where do people go for their banking needs? The reality is that the banks that are closing have entered into an agreement with businesses and individuals; when they opened their bank account, they opened it with the bank on the high street. The business was there because it expected a certain amount of customer service—that is why they went there in the first place. Face-to-face banking offers confidence, security and efficiency, especially for businesses handing over cash and making significant financial decisions. Without those services, it just will not work. In 2022, the Federation of Small Businesses found that four in 10 small businesses still relied on cash as a primary payment, and six in 10 needed to make regular cash deposits. I regularly hear from businesses in Tatton that they simply cannot deposit cash or access the basic services needed. Why? Well, that is because 64% of bank branches have closed in the last decade and 65% of cashpoints have gone. That is reducing the ability of businesses to deposit cash in the local area. The shift to online poses risks from technical failures and cyber-attacks. We have heard that through this monopoly and lack of access, there is a squeeze, and commission is being charged for the transactions of these businesses. Our high streets are at the heart of our communities, but without access to banking services, our high streets, which are already under pressure, have become even harder places to trade, grow and thrive. If we are serious about supporting small businesses and seeing investment on our local high streets and in our town centres, we must stop the decline in banking infrastructure. Some may argue that closures would be reasonable if banks were losing money and needed to take cost-cutting measures, but that is simply not the case. Banks are not struggling institutions. Last year, HSBC reported nearly $25 billion in post-tax profits. Barclays made $6.4 billion. Lloyds made $4.5 billion. NatWest made $4.8 billion. Those are all eye-watering profits—
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement, and I congratulate the Environmental Audit Committee for its excellent and thoughtful report on governing the marine environment. A key component in that is marine conservation and protection, including the myriad species living in that environment, such as cetaceans. There is no humane way to kill a whale, and sadly the barbaric practice of hunting and killing whales and dolphins still continues. Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that the United Kingdom can play a pivotal role in ending this practice with its global soft power, and in treaty negotiations, trade deals and fisheries negotiations, by putting pressure on countries like Japan, Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands to stop this horrific practice in our seas and oceans once and for all?
Like the constituencies of Members across the House, Epping Forest has seen a series of bank closures over the years. Tragically, Lloyds bank has said that later this year it will close its branch in Debden in my constituency. Like the banks in my right hon. Friend’s community, that branch is a lifeline; many people rely on it for face-to-face banking and will struggle to get to other branches. Does she agree that banks such as Lloyds need to rethink and stop those closures, and that the Government and Link need to step in and support high street banking?
I am delighted that more children will have school meals at lunch time. It is great for pupils to be well fed—as a paediatrician, I see the value of that. However, I want to ask about transitional protection and money. The transitional protection will take 1.2 million children out of this category; some may go back into it with UC. However, the robbing of the money from pupil premiums will leave schools £1.5 billion short. How does the Minister intend to replace that £1.5 billion for schools so that children can get a good education as well as school meals?
Will the Leader of the House bring forward a specific debate that focuses on the 80th anniversary of VJ Day and the end of the war in the far east, so that the horrific conditions in which those, for example, in the King’s Own Scottish Borderers had to fight and the conditions that people faced as prisoners of war can be properly recognised? We had a debate on the 80th anniversary of VE Day, but—as in 1945—the end of the war in Europe overshadowed those events in the far east.
I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising. There is also an issue with cash machines inside shops that may be open for longer, but they are stocked from the shop by the cash received in the premises. There can be cash machines in a shop that have no cash in them, but Link has to take them into account when assessing whether there should be a free-to-use cash machine in a community.
In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will start with my ask of the Minister, which is that the criteria for assessing whether there should be a free-to-use cash machine in a community be reassessed. For example, in my constituency, the Bank of Scotland closed its branch in the community of Moffat on the same day as it closed four other branches. At the moment, Link has to take into account every other cash machine in the vicinity, regardless of whether there is any cash in those machines—often, machines in retail outlets are not fully stocked with cash all the time; they rely on cash coming in through the till to go into the machine—or whether premises are open for 24 hours or are particularly disabled or vulnerable people-friendly. At this moment, we cannot get another cash machine because it has been assessed that the number is sufficient, without any assessment of those cash machines. The closures I referred to mean that for 75 miles along the M74 motorway, from the border to Hamilton, you will not find a bank branch. When it comes to bank buildings being taken up by others, I have not been as lucky as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey): they are often very large buildings on small high streets, and unless the banks are willing to do something themselves, there are not often other users. The Bank of Scotland previously said that it would allow the Peebles branch that is closing to be for community use, and the community have engaged, so I am disappointed to hear that they find today that a “For sale” sign has appeared outside that branch. I hope that the Bank of Scotland will keep that community access. My third point is that we need to join up what is happening. The Bank of Scotland in Sanquhar in my constituency is closing. The bank is putting a bank consultant into the community to look after its customers, it says, but that person will not be in the post office that has been designated by Link as the effective banking hub in that community. That person will hold separate meetings in a council office. There just is not joined-up thinking. My final point is that we talk about post offices when many people do not have a physical post office, but a temporary post office delivered out of the back of a van, which is not capable of providing a banking hub service.
Does my hon. Friend understand that people are very angry about bank closures, and about the fact they feel that the banks just do not listen to them when they go through some consultation exercise? That is why in Moffat, at 2 pm tomorrow, there will be a protest outside the closing Bank of Scotland.