HC Deb 29 March 2000 vol 347 cc70-91WH

11 am

Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate an issue that is of great concern throughout the country, for reasons that are not difficult to see. During the past 10 years, more than 4,000 bank branches have closed, and it is predicted that another 4,000 will close in the next five years if the banks do not change their approach. We are heading fast towards 172 BC—Barclays closure day, on 7 April, when it plans to axe 172 branches at a stroke.

Two of those branches are in my constituency. Regarding the one at Oulton Broad, I have advised my constituents to take the advice given by my hon. Friend the Minister a couple of weeks ago and vote with their feet, because there are still a couple of other banks in that community. In the case of the second proposed closure, in the Kirkley area of south Lowestoft, my constituents are unable to follow that advice because Barclays is the last bank in south Lowestoft. I should add that Lowestoft, a town with a population of 65,000, is cut in two by a river and joined only by a lift-up bridge, so it has two distinct communities, but Barclays has not recognised that because it does not consider such matters of detail in any community.

That part of Lowestoft is a single regeneration budget area, and the Government and other public bodies are contributing £20 million of public money, together with much hard work on the ground, to regenerate the area. By definition, a single regeneration budget area has a high proportion of vulnerable people, including elderly people. In addition, it has high unemployment, poverty and poor health. However, the area is also a commercial area. Many small shops line the A12 as it runs into Lowestoft, and there are plenty of other small businesses. Those shops are struggling, but they are hanging on because their proprietors believe in the regeneration process and can see signs of progress in their community, three years into a seven-year programme, the object of which is to create jobs, impove housing conditions and enhance the built environment.

Barclays is walking away and abandoning the area, as it is abandoning other parts of the country. It is saying, in effect, that it does not believe that regeneration will work, or that it does not care whether it works. Its decision to move out of the area will undermine confidence in the regeneration process and in that part of Lowestoft. Its departure will also present practical difficulties for small businesses. It will require shopkeepers, who often work on their own, to travel further to do their banking, and to take a higher security risk or incur extra costs in delivering their takings to the bank.

I said that Barclays was walking away, but it would be more accurate to say that it is running away, because it has given its loyal customers only a few weeks' notice that it is closing their bank. That is a kick in the teeth for those customers and the community in which the bank is situated. Barclays is leaving elderly and disabled people to fend for themselves. What thought does Barclays have for Mr. Philip Baldry of Southwell road, Lowestoft? Mr. Baldry is blind and his dog is specially trained to guide him to that bank. What does Mr. Baldry do now?

The reaction of the community is strong. People are appalled by Barclays' actions. The local paper, the Lowestoft Journal, has run a campaign, the like of which I have never seen before. In an unprecedented move, the editor put his own letter on the front page. Mr. Ernie Skepelhorn, who lives in the area, has organised a petition, which must be the easiest one ever compiled because people are queueing up to sign it.

Like other hon. Members, I received a letter from Barclays Group public affairs. It began by explaining that it had decided what to do. There was no question of consultation. How would Barclays react if the Government conducted their business in that way? It would want to be consulted.

I asked a Barclays manager to come to Lowestoft. When he arrived, I asked what criteria were used for closing branches. It was clear that they were national, narrow and financial. I asked whether a local appraisal had been made of branches. He said yes, but did not have the details with him. It was obvious that the decisions were taken simply on the basis of maps and head office statistics; they show a narrow focus and a centralised approach. The manager said that an automatic telling machine might be provided—which, of course, would come with the charges that Barclays would like to impose—or that people could use a supermarket or Marks and Spencer, which does not exist in the area. He refused to talk to the media or local people. I had to cajole him even to receive the petition. But now I know why, and I know that Barclays is guilty of a cynical disregard of its customers.

When the manager left, I saw a pile of documents in my car that belonged to him. I could not resist looking at them.

Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk)

Must be a trainee Whip.

Mr. Blizzard

This is not a laughing matter.

I found a closure kit on a project called Closure 2000. It included an inaccurate local briefing document, which said that my area had just received objective 2 European funding for a future programme. There was no mention of the SRB programme, which has been under way for two or three years. The briefing told the manager that Bob Blizzard MP is likely to argue that he and the local council [please note—Mr. Blizzard is leader of the local council]. I know that one or two hon. Members retain their seats on councils, but I do not know of one who is the leader of a council. I gave that up in 1997 when I entered the House of Commons. Is that the quality of information on which Barclays bases such decisions? The briefing document did, however, admit that branch closure sends out a negative message about the economic viability of an area. That is my case.

The papers included a branch closure staff guidance pack. It contained some gems. It told staff: We strongly recommend that you role play some of the more difficult questions with your colleagues before using them in a live situation … Where it is perceived that hotspots are developing the ARM should advise Head Office at the earliest possible stage. Well, Lowestoft is certainly a hotspot, and I bet that it is not the only one.

The document described strategies for staff to dissuade customers from complaining to their Member of Parliament or starting a petition. They have not been very successful. It said: If a customer says that they are going to contact the local media—do not make any comment. The guidance pack posed questions, including Is there a possibility of the branch remaining open? to which the answer was "No." There was, however, a chink of light because it said: This decision is unlikely to be changed. I stress the word "unlikely". To the question, Why weren't we consulted? staff were to respond: This is a business decision. My visitor from Barclays said that he would pass on my message, but closure was not his decision. I meet more Barclays executives on Monday, but not the man who will take the decision on closure. I shall ask them to work with the Government in the regeneration process. If the SRB works, there will be increased business for the branch. Shops will thrive and there will be more small businesses, tourists and employed local people. I shall ask Barclays to put the regeneration programme to the test. It should grant a stay of execution and give the SRB a chance. It should sit down and discuss with the Government how a bank can be retained in this fragile regeneration and rebuilding process, to avoid damaging confidence.

There should be a breathing space for other solutions to be examined. How about a shared bank? Different utility companies seem able to share the same pipe or cable these days, so why cannot the banks share? Currently, they cannot share even an automatic telling machine without charging each other's customers. Am I asking too much of the banks in requesting that they take a wider view of social responsibility and consider branches in the context of local communities? It is not as though banks such as Barclays cannot afford to do so. Two weeks ago, Don Cruickshank told us that the banks are making excess profits of about £5 billion a year, and Barclays is part of that.

Barclays is currently running an advertising campaign and is spending millions of pounds on television. One cannot open a daily newspaper without seeing a huge advertisement. I am told that a double page in The Times costs £80,000 a go. The advertisement tells us how big the company is, and yet it is downsizing its branch network. We are also told that it is undertaking the biggest educational sponsorship scheme in the United Kingdom, which illustrates its support for communities. In light of what is actually being done to communities, that is a public relations stunt. Real community support would consist of keeping branches such as that in south Lowestoft open. That is support that counts.

For too long, the banks in this country have had a culture that is not customer focused. Do hon. Members remember the battle to get banks to open on Saturday mornings? Do they remember when banks used to close at 3 o'clock in the afternoon? The current circumstances are no better and, as very few large banks remain, they have unreasonable power in the market.

The banks say that the current network of branches is not viable, but comparisons with mainland Europe produce some very interesting numbers. I am told that there are 170 branches per million people in this country. If building societies are included, there are 260 branches per million people. However, there are 400 branches per million people in Italy, 600 branches per million people in Germany and 900 branches per million people in Spain.

I was pleased last week when the Chancellor signalled his intention to use the Don Cruickshank report. He invited the Post Office and the banks to work together to offer basic banking services to all. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to challenge Barclays and other banks to reconsider closures in regeneration areas. SRB is a specific and definable criterion, and I dare say that other hon. Members will find other criteria. Will my hon. Friend join me in asking Barclays to halt the immediate closure of such branches? Will he insist that it meets representatives of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss the impact of local branches in regeneration processes and how to avoid the damaging of confidence and the imposition of further burdens on small businesses? Those results would definitely follow if the local branches closed.

I am making a practical suggestion. Regeneration is about tackling serious problems and is a vital process in which the giant banks should play a serious and responsible part. At a time when we know that the banks are making excess profits, we must not let them get away with such damaging closures. If they will not co-operate, we will have to consider measures such as regulation or a windfall tax. That might focus their outlook and make them ask whether they are big enough to change their minds.

11.13 am
Mrs. Gillian Shephard (South-West Norfolk)

We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for bringing forward this matter for debate. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he presented his case and congratulate him on having secured the debate. All hon. Members will be happy to use the disclosures from the back seat of his car that he has revealed to us. His arguments apply not only to parts of East Anglia that are covered by regeneration programmes but to those that are not. The debate gives East Anglian Members the chance to express some of the outrage felt locally about Barclays bank branch closures. In my constituency, where the East Harling and Feltwell branches are to close, the issue is regarded as one more nail in the coffin of rural life. People in rural areas feel that they are becoming among the most disadvantaged in society.

Despite the handy role-play advice that the hon. Member for Waveney disclosed was given to Barclays bank employees, the bank must have been taken by surprise by the fury and intensity of the local reaction. There was a sit-in at Terrington St. Clement, which is in the constituency of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). Uniquely, it was organised by people over the age of 70. Cheese sandwiches were provided through the bank's letter-box. It lasted five hours and was lovingly chronicled in our local media, including the Eastern Daily Press. Afterwards, bank employees had to have time off for the stress imposed on them by the 70-year-old participants. That must have been one of the "hotspots" referred to by the hon. Member for Waveney in his excellent speech.

We have seen an array of banners at Brundall, which I believe is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson). We have seen pickets in Lincolnshire. In my constituency, we have had much protest, furious letters and complaints about the way in which Barclays has announced its proposals for the branches.

It should be remembered that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and the hon. Member for Waveney will know, Barclays is a bank that has generations, and, indeed, centuries of connections with East Anglia and, in particular, with Norfolk. For many Norfolk people, Barclays is their bank, certainly for those above a certain age.

My constituent, Mr. Dudley Stammers of East Harling, has banked with Barclays at the branch in East Harling, as did his father, his grandfather and his great-grandfather through the generations. The only information that he was given was a leaflet stuffed into his hand as he left the bank a couple of weeks ago. I am extremely surprised that bank employees have apparently been given advice on handling the situation. All that one might say is that it was not extremely successful.

We all know that banks are commercial organisations and that, increasingly, people will use cashpoint machines. Interestingly, this week the banks changed their mind regarding charges for the use of the machines. We know that, increasingly, people will use telephone banking and the internet. However, for many, those are not an option. For people running small local businesses grouped around isolated rural communities, there is no time to travel to lodge cash with a bank some distance away. With falling numbers of police, there are also understandable security fears when people must take large sums back and forth in their car.

Parents at home with their children might like the opportunity to go to a bank in a nearby town but do not have the time. People at work and, especially, the elderly do not have the opportunity to bank elsewhere. Increasingly, those for whom the price of petrol—it is now £4 a gallon—has become an intolerable burden must think once, twice or three times before they get in the car to go to the nearest market town to do their banking.

As I said, the role of Barclays bank in Norfolk has always been pretty special. As the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out, the bank would still like the public to believe that it provides a special service and that it wishes to lavish care on its customers. We know also, from Barclays' annual report, that this year £200 million in bonuses has been paid to top executives.

It is interesting to note that Barclays can spend large sums to persuade the public of its enthusiasm for local businesses and to demonstrate the role of banking in regenerating communities or keeping them going, yet still pull the rug from under them. It must be obvious that an active bank branch brings business to a community, even a small one, because people who use the bank will spend money and undertake other business in the community. The closure of a branch pulls the plug on the economic activities of an area.

At the moment, rural people are disadvantaged. Many local post offices are under threat. People in Norfolk face council tax increases that are three times the rate of inflation. Agriculture is in its worst straits since the 1930s. Petrol now costs £4 a gallon and people in rural areas regularly face a 15-mile round trip to visit the doctor. We can do without a well known bank pulling the rug out from under us like that.

How much more heartening it would have been if the hon. Member for Waveney had been able to find in the filched material that was left in his car a clue that the bank wanted to consider other ways of providing a service. Instead, it contains a list of instructions on how to fob off concerned and genuine questions of the sort posed by the hon. Gentleman. How much better it would have been if Barclays had spent a moment considering how it might co-operate with local post offices and with other rural regeneration schemes instead of saying no when asked whether it was going to think again about closure. I believe that it should think again.

11.22 am
Mr. Martin Salter (Reading, West)

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing the debate and on the strident efforts that he has made on behalf of his constituents to halt the disgraceful tide of closures announced by Barclays. Other hon. Members who represent constituencies in the region have also spoken out against the closures.

It was somewhat ironic to hear the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) speak about pickets and sit-ins. Politics has indeed turned on its head if Conservative Members are found to be supporting such welcome direct action. We may have lessons to learn from one another.

The debate is timely. Only yesterday, we launched the all-party group on banking. I was pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney and for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and many other hon. Members from across the political spectrum were present to give their unstinting support to resisting the tide of financial exclusion that threatens to engulf many communities, not only in rural areas but in urban and small, deprived inner-city communities.

Undoubtedly, of all the major national banks, Barclays is the most unresponsive to both public and political pressure. It is clear that Barclays intends to proceed with the closure of 172 branches, despite the fact that there is almost unprecedented political activity in the House over the matter. Some 300 Members of Parliament have signed early-day motions condemning bank closures generally and Barclays' activities in particular. As I speak, there are about 20 early-day motions on the Order Paper.

The all-party parliamentary group on banking exists not to legislate but to work together to explore options and bring pressure to bear on the banking industry to try to make it more accountable and more responsive to customers' needs. The present tide of closures is taking place at a time when the banks are securing record profits. Last year alone, the United Kingdom banking industry made a net profit of £20 billion. Paradoxically, profits are going through the roof while the branch networking is systematically butchered.

Many solutions need to be explored. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney said, there is a prospect of banks being regulated if they do not put their house in order and show similar concern for customers as for shareholders. Perhaps the Minister will be able to hold out such a prospect when he replies. Other options have been outlined today and in other debates. If only the big four banks would agree to talk to one another. At the moment, there is a sort of race not to be the last bank left in any town or village, because it is obvious that the last bank to close will take the flak from local communities and their democratically elected representatives. If a community is not large enough in major banks' terms to sustain four branches, what would be wrong with their sharing facilities and processing one another's customers, at least leaving those communities some access to basic banking services?

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

Although the current flak is, rightly, being directed at Barclays, the other high street banks that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned are also deeply into this game. Even after Barclay's current closure programme is completed, NatWest and Lloyds TSB will have closed still more branches since the 1990s. The campaign should be directed fully at the four major banks and the problems that they are creating generally, although one solution would be for them to get together to provide facilities in communities.

Mr. Salter

My hon. Friend makes a telling, accurate point. We are singling out Barclays for our vitriol today but it could easily be sprayed around at all the big four banks and at the United Kingdom banking sector in general. However, one bit of good news has just come to light. Following the takeover of NatWest by the Royal Bank of Scotland, the proposed closure of 250 to 300 banks has been put on hold. I understand that that decision was taken as recently as yesterday. Sixty fairly well advanced closures will go ahead but 140 to 190 branches have been reprieved. How long this will last remains to be seen.

The other purpose of the campaign is to provide not only a strong voice in Parliament for local communities that are threatened with financial exclusion but a strong voice for customers, whom the major banks singularly ignore in their relentless search for even greater, more obscene profits.

Another ray of light—at present there are only rays—is the excellent report by Don Cruickshank, the Treasury adviser, who began an inquiry into financial exclusion. Hon. Members need to study some of the report's recommendations to ensure that it does not gather dust in Treasury filing cabinets or elsewhere. I look forward to working with other hon. Members to that end.

The most likely solution, with which I hope the Minister will deal in his response, is to use the 19,000-strong post office network. It has shrunk by 1 per cent. over the past few years and we cannot turn back the clock: modernisation will take place. Automated credit transfer will have an effect on the post office network and it is pointless for Labour Back Benchers to deny it, but other options are available to strengthen the Post Office.

The Post Office is perhaps the best loved of British institutions. We need to get the banks talking to each other and to be responsive to public and political pressure. That could produce capital investment in all our major post offices and sub-post offices, which could provide at least basic banking services to our constituents who want access to their own money.

Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)

Is it not another bitter irony in the saga of Barclays' total disregard for its customers that it engaged in an experimental project in Cornwall to establish whether post offices could take over some of the banking services denied to its customers, yet did not wait for the outcome of the experiment before engaging in what my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney discovered has been defined as Closure 2000? That provides another example of Barclays' total failure to deliver to some of their most loyal customers.

Mr. Salter

Barclays is guilty of the worst cynicism. I am sure that Cornwall was picked for the pilot project because it was furthest from the London-based media.

Credit unions have been promoted as social banks in deprived communities such as Salford, yet those experiments, worthy as they are, do not stop for a moment the advance of the savage closure programmes. We must make these pilot schemes more than regional experiments and place them at the top of the agenda. It is our role as parliamentarians not only to raise issues but to propose solutions. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk certainly touched on possible solutions in the offing.

Many groups are affected by bank closure, and the elderly and people on fixed incomes are the worst affected. I am pleased that Help the Aged has joined forces with the campaign for commuity banking services and the new all-party group to add its voice to the outcry against the tide of financial exclusion.

I wish to end by telling a story about my constituency to illustrate how, just once, we managed to force a major national bank to back down and listen to people, especially the elderly. Last spring, rebellion was in the air in Reading, West. It is a fairly prosperous constituency at the heart of middle England. A major national institution had incensed a wide coalition comprising small business men and women, jobbing builders, the elderly, the blind and the disabled—in fact, just about everyone who does not rely exclusively on cash machines for all their financial transactions. I am talking, of course, about Lloyds TSB—the bank that used to like to say yes.

Lloyds TSB faced a storm of protest when it announced the closure of the only bank left in the village of Theale, just outside Reading. To add insult to injury, the full automation of two further district branches and the partial automation of its central Reading branch were proposed. It was part of an ill-fated national pilot scheme to see whether bank customers were ready to deal solely with robots rather than people. My constituents' reaction was hostile, to say the least. I was proud to spearhead a campaign aimed at sinking that pilot project once and for all. I had no doubt that if Lloyds TSB got away with it in Reading, wholesale automation would have been introduced in thousands of other communities throughout the country. It was a nasty glimpse into the future.

Reading is the capital of the Thames valley, is at the cutting edge of e-commerce and is probably the last place to wish to resist progress. Yet for all the advance of internet banking and the increased use of ATMs, how on earth is a blind person supposed to use a fully automated bank? What use is a cash machine that will issue only £200 a day to a jobbing builder who needs money to pay labourers and buy materials? What about the shopkeeper who loses a day's interest on deposits? Hon. Members may be interested to learn that it takes four days for a robot to process a cheque and three days for a human being. So much for progress!

There are many elderly people in my constituency who simply do not trust putting their hard-earned savings into a hole in the wall—and why on earth should they? I like campaigning—it is one of the reaons why I am in politics—but seldom have I had as much pleasure as I have had in directing the protests and anger of my constituents at the arrogant Lloyds TSB executives who were seeking to use them as guinea pigs in their constant search for even greater profits.

At times, the big four banks seem almost oblivious to the terrible publicity that they generate for themselves by pursuing their policies of branch closure, cash machine charges and excessive profiteering, yet just this once we forced them to back down. I do not know whether it was the horror of being picketed by scores of blind and disabled people on national television. Perhaps it was having their nice little House of Commons summer reception gatecrashed by a particularly belligerent MP and his staff. Was it the threat of being exposed for breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995? Whatever it was, I am pleased to report that the Lloyds TSB executives eventually caved in and cashiers were reinstated in Reading. I hope that the efforts of hon. Members and others working together will force the banks to see sense and give communities and their customers the level of attention that they currently give to their shareholders.

11.36 am
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk)

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing this Adjournment debate. I welcome the fine contributions by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). Indeed, it is strange to see so many of us who are roughly of the same generation and who have at times been on different sides. I look at the Minister: 30 years ago, we stood on different sides of a barricade. I suspect that, on this occasion, we are all on the same side.

Like other hon. Members, I wish to bring to the attention of the Chamber the deep sense of outrage in my constituency about the closure of two Barclays bank branches at Reepham and Brundall. I have had campaigns in the past: people have written to me about a wide range of issues that have upset them, such as the national health service and hunting, whether for or against, but seldom have I heard such genuine, deep anger. It has been expressed not only by the people in those two communities, but by people throughout my constituency, including those who can easily find alternative means of banking.

The protests that I have received have not been in the Luddite tradition of refusing to face up to progress. Nearly everyone recognises that it is a highly competitive world and that the banks must adapt to new technology of one kind or another. However, it seems to many people that Barclays has got it wrong. It may be taking the brunt of the blame for decisions also taken by the other banks, but in this case it has shown a degree of crass stupidity that only a political party in terminal decline can ever show. At different stages the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties have all witnessed that.

As the hon. Member for Waveney pointed out, the debate has focused on the effect of Government regeneration policies on bank branch closures. I want to say at the outset that in Norfolk, we feel out on a limb. We feel neglected, and there is a danger that the Government's well-intentioned policies of regeneration may be seen by many people in Norfolk as policies of degeneration, which will cause things to get worse. The closure of branches by Barclays must be seen in the context of many other things that have happened to rural communities such as those in Norfolk in the past decade, and which have accelerated during the past three years.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk spoke about the crisis facing farming. There is a real crisis in my constituency. One need only see the pig farmers' picket a few yards from the Room.

As hon. Members have said, we must bear in mind the closure of sub-post offices. The Government's decision in May 1999 to scrap the previous Government's Horizon project for paying benefit using swipe cards will have a major impact on post offices. Forty per cent. of rural sub-post offices' income comes from benefit payments. Many rural post offices will close as a result of that decision. As hon. Members know, in many communities the post office effectively subsidises the village shop. Between 1992 and 1997, 99 sub-post offices were closing annually. Now, 235 are closing every year. On 5 February, the Eastern Daily Press reported that more than 20 village post offices in Norfolk and Suffolk had shut in the past 12 months.

Hon. Members' worthy proposals on the alternative of combining banking facilities and sub-post offices may not be workable. So many sub-post offices may close while we are trying to achieve that, that communities such as Reepham and Brundall will end up without a bank or sub-post office.

Mrs. Shephard

Does my hon. Friend accept that there could have been a means of saving some rural post offices, had more thought been given to Barclays' operation in such matters? A partnership might have been formed that would have given post offices an additional function. That could have saved some post offices, although it is undeniable that many have closed.

Mr. Simpson

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Once again, we confront the worst kind of short-termism.

Mr. Blizzard

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if postmasters, newspapers and pensioner groups keep saying that post offices are going to close, that will undermine confidence in post offices and cause some customers to abandon them in favour of a bank? Should we not encourage people to use post offices to stop them closing?

Mr. Simpson

; I fully endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. Unfortunately, however, more and more sub-post offices in my constituency are closing. Indeed, this Friday I am attending a meeting about one that is under threat.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, Barclays' decision has provoked outrage in Norfolk. My constituents in Reepham and Brundall have contacted me by letter and telephone. They are extremely angry that the decision will be implemented—as the hon. Member for Waveney said—on 7 April, whatever anyone says. Barclays is in, "I hear what you say" mode, which is a polite way of saying, "I don't give a damn what you say."

Consultation has been lacking and there is genuine fury that the announcement has, unfortunately for Barclays, come at a time when the bank's profits have increased by 30 per cent. to £2.5 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, the directors have had a small windfall. A massive new advertising campaign with a famous British actor appearing—presumably for a large fee—to say how wellBarclays is doing rubs salt into the wound. Another bank claimed that it was a listening bank. At least Barclays has spared us that; if it took such a line, it would be lynched.

What will the closures of the branches of Barclays in Reepham and Brundall mean to those communities? I live in Reepham, a market town of about 4,000 inhabitants which is used by many in surrounding villages. Individual customers and local family businesses bank there. The nearest Barclays bank is 8 miles away in Aylsham, constituting a round trip of 16 miles. So there is an immediate impact on many individuals. Mrs. Joyce Cox, secretary of the Reepham Patient Care Fund, told me that she wrote to Barclays' branch manager in Aylsham saying that the fund would have to use its small coach to bring disabled customers to it. She wondered whether Barclays would make a small contribution to the cost of the extra petrol. In reply, she received a letter saying, effectively, "I hear what you say."

Brian Robertson, our local butcher, has said that the closure will affect the way in which local businesses bank their cash, not only because of the disruption caused by taking money to another bank but because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, they feel insecure and are worried about increasing instances of robbery and muggings.

The impact on Brundall, a large village to the east of Norwich on the River Wensum, will be similar but with a particular degradation of tourism. The bank offers a service for holidaymakers, and local people, such as David Green and Kiki Angelbath, fear that the closure will have a detrimental effect. The combination of bank branch closures and the threat to sub-post offices—a point made by George Johnson in Reepham—will produce degeneration, not regeneration, in rural communities.

I want to emphasise a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk. It is indeed a deep irony that Barclays bank has a direct Norfolk connection, with the families of the Barclays, the Gurneys and the Buxtons. They were 18th-century Quakers who went into banking not only for commercial reasons and to make a profit, but to provide a service for the farming community, based on deep Christian beliefs. They had a commitment to social welfare.

The plea of my constituents in Reepham and Brundall, expressed by the vicar of Reepham, the Rev. Michael Patison, is not that Barclays should be an extension of the welfare state, but that it should reconsider its decision to close its branches in Reepham and Brundall and in other constituencies. The banks should consider the strong cross-party feeling shown in this debate and realise that it may affect the future of banking and the legislation that may be introduced.

11.46 am
Ms Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Highgate)

I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) for securing this Adjournment debate. As in the previous, shorter Adjournment debate on this subject, every hon. Member who has spoken has adduced a litany of experience on the serious impact that the proposed closure of bank branches by Barclays will have on our constituents.

Mine is not a rural constituency, but the proposed closure of the Hampstead Heath branch of Barclays will have a serious impact on an area where people have prided themselves on managing to maintain a strong sense of community and have worked extremely hard to maintain the village atmosphere. We have many small shops that are entirely dependent on Barclays; it is the only bank in that part of my constituency.

Although the Hampstead Heath branch may not seem a million miles away from the branch in Hampstead village, the latter is at the top of an extremely steep hill. Although the distance is not far, some of those Barclays customers who will be most strongly, even doubly, affected find it extremely difficult to reach. They have been Barclays customers all their life and have shown their loyalty. They are now pensioners, and the bank that they have entrusted with their savings, which they believed would deliver a high-quality service, is now betraying them. I do not think that that choice of word is too extreme.

The proposed closure will also impact strongly on all the small businesses in the area, because they are largely based on cash transactions. Barclays argues that going on-line will solve their problems and that, in future, the technology will be such that hole-in-the-wall machines will be able to take cash as well as provide it, but they will not be able to deliver change, which is intrinsic to the businesses about which I am speaking. Hon. Members also mentioned the perceived rise in the potential for crime, which is of great concern to my constituents. To most people in this Room, the withdrawal of a small amount of money may not seem fraught with the potential for danger, but for pensioners that small transaction involves a large amount of money. They are genuinely afraid of being able to withdraw cash only from a hole in the wall.

I was one of several hon. Members who recently attended a meeting in the House with the directors of Barclays bank. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, their policy seems to be, "We hear you, but we are not listening to what you say to us." The suggestion that there is a potential, if not for increased crime then for an increased fear of crime, was pooh-poohed by the directors, who said that they would introduce closed circuit television cameras in the hotspots. How many attacks must be carried out before the directors of Barclays bank, who seem to have closed their ears to what their customers tell them, introduce the type of security about which they were speaking?

Many hon. Members mentioned degeneration. If the small businesses in my constituency are denied a full range of banking services, it will affect their customers. Most people in this day and age do not have the time to fly like butterflies between venues to different services; there are not enough hours in the day for them to do so. If the bank goes, the customers will move to another bank and spend their money in other shops and cafés and on other services. That will lead to degeneration, which happens in urban areas, too. Degeneration in rural areas was described in graphic detail, and urban areas, too, are desperate for regeneration. Changes are being made, and small and medium-sized businesses are the major job creators in my constituency.

The popular perception is that no one in Hampstead and Highgate is less then a millionaire, but nothing could be further from the truth. There are serious and grave areas of major deprivation in my constituency, as there are in all urban constituencies. Barclays' proposals are another serious blow to areas where people have worked extremely hard, giving their time and efforts to retaining the sense of community by caring for one another. They are trying to maintain the principles, mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, that energised the bank's founders. How far has that bank slipped?

At the meeting with directors of Barclays that I mentioned earlier, hon. Members were told that because of modernisation and the apparent desire of everyone to opt for on-line banking, Barclays would provide a high-quality service to most of its customers—not to all of its customers; certainly not to those who have been most loyal to the bank over the years, but to "most" of its customers. There was no concomitant sentence stating that the charges to those customers who had less than a high-quality service would be reduced.

The Cruickshank report alleges that the banks have vastly inflated profits. "Bankbusters", on television, gives many examples of incompetent high street banks overcharging their customers. I strongly add my voice to requests for the Government to examine high street banking. If banks continue to treat their customers in such a cavalier way, the next step may be to examine regulatory procedures such as those in, for example, the United States of America, which has community regeneration legislation under which banks must make a major regenerative contribution to their customers if they intend to close their high street branches. Mention has been made of the outrage felt by customers about the complete lack of consultation. Customers knew that the branch in my constituency was to close only because of a notice in the window.

At a meeting with Members of Parliament, Barclays bank directors were categorical that they wanted the closures to take place in six weeks. They said that assistance would be provided to people who have no confidence in, or knowledge of, on-line banking and that additional services would be available for customers with disabilities. I have written to Barclays requesting information about such services—but answer comes there none.

The case that was presented to me about the bank closure in my constituency was based on Barclays saying that customers were leaving the branch and that there was no longer a requirement for counter services. In less than half a day, two of my most active constituents, who have been protesting about the closure, obtained more than 800 signatures from people who wished the branch to be maintained. I hope that the bank will have listened carefully to the contents of this morning's debate, because being a big bank in a big world—the excessive amount that it is spending on advertising has already been mentioned—will be of no value if its excessive activities abroad reduce the potential for jobs and small and medium enterprises to flourish. Or is that how Barclays wants the future to be? Does it want to be a big bank everywhere except the United Kingdom?

11.56 am
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire)

I must be mellowing in my old age, because I have not advocated direct action since the days of the poll tax. It was always non-violent direct action that I supported, but given the contributions from some surprising quarters this morning, perhaps I need to reassess my position on bank closures. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) claimed that we were not luddites. I must say in response that the luddites have had a bad press and I suggest that he reads the work of the historian, E. P. Thompson, who attempted to redress that position. At the time, luddites were faced with horrendous situations.

What is so obnoxious about the bank closure programme is that we have a growing economy. It surprises me how well the economy is doing, because it seems to be expounding third way proposals of which I am not an advocate. Bank activity is growing, yet banks are closing their outlets. The automated credit transfer system will add to the numbers of accounts with which the banks will be dealing and will add to the needs of those who require regular access to local branches.

The problem relates to not only Barclays bank, but major banks throughout the country, some of which will have reduced the number of branches even more drastically than Barclays will have done after 7 April. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, it would be a good idea for people to sign up to the remaining bank in their community. It is easier nowadays to transfer entire accounts than it has ever been. That is useful, but all the banks in Killamarsh in my constituency have disappeared. Many people moved from their Killamarsh NatWest branch to Barclays, and were devasted when Barclays announced that it was to leave neighbouring Eckington. Many people are affected by inertia and do not bother to transfer, so banks lose out. I faced that problem when TSB moved out of Dronfield, where 1 live, and I retain my Lloyds TSB account despite great inconvenience. Lloyds TSB always rings people in the most inconvenient way, asking them to go and discuss their financial position.

There are many problems, but I had better allow other hon. Members to speak.

12 noon

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)

I pass my congratulations to the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who has clearly struck a raw nerve in many constituencies, including mine. I shall try to make my contribution different by considering the big picture. It surprises me that people should be taken aback at what is happening.

Since the mid-1980s, there has been a shareholder-value revolution in the banking industry. Banks were once not primarily driven by their shareholders. Barclays was owned and run by old Quaker families with a paternalistic tradition. Until the mid-1980s, many banking outlets were dominated by the mutual movement; the Library shows that that was the case in about 35 per cent. of outlets, but the figure is now less than 15 per cent. Now the banks are primarily driven by the need to add value for their shareholders. That has some positive consequences, not only for the shareholders; large business or private customers with good credit ratings clearly do well out of the more abrasive environment.

That culture also has considerable costs, and I am not referring only to branch closures. One of the biggest costs is borne by the workers. There are far fewer of them, and they have less job security. Amid all the legitimate concerns about Longbridge, where, I think, 9,000 jobs are at risk, we might overlook the fact that approximately 30,000 jobs are at risk from the merger of NatWest with the Royal Bank of Scotland. The jobs are not so concentrated, as they are part of the fallout of the closure of bank branches across the country. There are also implications for pensioners, as those of us who were involved in the battle on the Floor of the House to hold up the Lloyds TSB merger until pensioners were properly looked after will know. Costs are primarily and most visibly being paid in terms of the contraction of the branch network.

Time is short, and the emphasis of our discussion is to try to find constructive solutions, so I shall suggest three approaches. The first is to build on growing competition in banking. We live in a tough, competitive environment, so we should make it work for the bank customers. There is not a great deal of competition in the retail sector at the moment; there appears to be, but customers do not often vote with their feet. Statistics suggest that people are more reluctant to change their bank than to change their husband or wife, so there is a low rate of mobility between banks.

Mrs. Shephard

The hon. Gentleman's argument is well constructed. The tenor of what he says is that people have a choice, but my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and the hon. Member for Waveney have said that that is not the case in rural areas.

Dr. Cable

The intervention is right. A problem in rural areas calls for social banking, as I shall mention in a moment. People have greater choice than they realise, whether in reaction to poor service or in protest at bank closures. People could and should express that choice. Unfortunately, the Cruickshank report, which was designed to highlight the competitive problem, focused more on wholesale than on retail banking. Some major changes must be made to the portability of accounts to give consumer power, which is needed to make competition work properly. I hope that the Government deal with that.

Let me move to the second point, which was mentioned in the intervention. Competition can go only so far. It cannot address the problems of social or financial exclusion. Only social banking can do that. Although there is a clear, identifiable need for social banking and some effective campaigning for it—led by, among others, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter)—community banking is a concept that has not yet found a practical expression. Credit unions are an obvious vehicle for that, but although the Government have talked eloquently about them for three years, the proposed reform package is still bottled up in the Treasury. Credit unions are smothered with regulatory controls, which the Treasury has not yet found a way past.

The other fundamental problem, which has been touched on, is the post office network. We are not dealing with a static situation. The decline of the post office network is accelerating. The network has been declining at the rate of about 200 branches a year. In the current financial year, there have been 400 closures, in anticipation of automated credit transfer. Unless a mechanism can be found for replacing the £400 million of income earned by the post office network, that rate of attrition will increase and the most important vehicle for social banking will be lost.

If the post office network is to be sustained it needs an income stream. The hon. Member for Reading, West suggested a windfall tax. That measure has a varied ideological pedigree: I believe that it was Lord Lawson, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, who first introduced one. Another idea that has emerged during the debate is the need for a social banking system to be subsidised; it obviously cannot operate on a profit-making basis. If those two proposals are put together, with the windfall tax providing revenue that would be ring-fenced instead of disappearing into the Treasury, that would provide a mechanism for solving the problem.

My third and final argument concerns regulation. Several hon. Members have said that if the banking system does not change its behaviour, it may need to be regulated to stop the process of bank closures. I would argue that that is necessary, but should not happen in a highly politicised way.

I have suggested a clause in the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is passing through the other place, that would oblige the regulator to ensure that banks comply with the needs of vulnerable customers—the aged, the disabled and those isolated in rural areas. So far the Treasury has not accepted that, although the Department of Trade and Industry has accepted a similar obligation on the utilities. A general power of that kind would impose on banks a requirement of the type in force in the United States, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). It would also provide flexibility because it would not be unduly prescriptive.

Therefore, a combination of intensified competition, the creation of consumer power by enabling people to switch their accounts more readily, a boost in the arm for social banking and some regulatory restraints on the operation of banks, might address the concerns that were so eloquently presented by the hon. Member for Waveney.

12.8 pm

Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard). It has been an interesting and topical debate. I particularly congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work as a private eye during his interview with the local Barclays branch. It would be interesting to see what memorandums are now flying from Barclays central office to branch managers, instructing them not to leave piles of papers on their desk during interviews with Members of Parliament. His remarks about the branch closure staff guidance pack make the procedure seem clinical—a world apart from the image of Capatin Mainwaring and the local bank branch.

It is a topical problem, with all the debate about automated telling machine charges, post office benefits changes and the formation yesterday, which the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) mentioned, of the parliamentary banking group. It is not just a question of BC—Barclays closure—on 7 April. Lloyds TSB has started a closure programme with the recent takeover of the National Westminister bank by the Royal Bank of Scotland. Many more closures of all kinds of branches are likely.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) said, the problem is not just rural. Certainly, rural areas are becoming some of the most disadvantaged areas for services. My constituency is largely urban and consists of parts of Worthing. It has a population of 100,000 that is made up of "villages within a town". At present, Worthing has the largest number of Lloyds bank branches per head in England. However, I confidently predict that, within the next couple of years only 50 per cent. will survive.

Barclays has also been closing branches in villages that are part of Worthing where they were the last branch. The closures have been carried out suddenly, with minimal consultation that has caused maximum disruption, particularly in Worthing with its higher than average number of elderly and disabled people. My right hon. Friend mentioned the 70-plus protests in her constituency, the fierce local reaction and the stress that had been caused to staff. She has seen nothing yet. If that tide gets under way, it will not just be 70-year-olds, it will be 80-year-olds, 90-year-olds, and a few 100-year-olds in my constituency. The figures for the past 10 years make interesting reading. Since 1990, 130,000 jobs in high street banks have gone, and as hon. Members have said, 4,000 branches have closed. In September 1999, Deloittes predicted that one third of the remaining 11,000 bank branches would close by 2005, and that many sizeable communities would be left without a bank.

The takeover of the National Westminster bank by the Royal Bank of Scotland came with a threat to cut floor space by half, and 850 of the 1,700 NatWest branches may be under threat. Let us hope that the news that the hon. Member for Reading, West brought us has delayed that decision, but ultimately those branches are under threat. It was rightly pointed out that this country gets a raw deal. High street banks in the rest of Europe fare much better. We have 170 banks per million people. France has 440 banks per million people, while Spain has 900 per million people. There has been much protest in the House about what is happening. The hon. Member for Reading, West underestimated the problem. There have been 28 early-day motions so far this year, 13 of them condemning Barclays, three condemning Lloyds and two condemning both banks. To date, they have attracted 563 signatures. It is a widespread issue.

Banks are not just buildings; they are at the heart of a community. They provide a vital service to many small firms. Solicitors' firms, for example, use overnight safes. Shops use overnight safes and, as my right hon. friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, they face a serious security problem and may lose out on interest if they cannot bank their takings locally on the day of trading because of time pressure. Building firms that need to provide ready money for their employees may also experience problems.

Banks constantly fob people off with science. They say that the whole world is changing and that internet and telephone banking services are available. At the moment, Barclays has some 650,000 internet customers of one description or another and 1 million customers who use telephone banking. However, I suspect that many of those customers use the branches, too. There are still many people who are not on the internet and do not bank by telephone, particularly the elderly.

As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said, it is offensive that Sir Anthony Hopkins appears in an expensive television advertisement, backed up by other media advertising, talking about being Mr. Big in a big world, for big business. Well, what about the little man? What about ordinary individuals who make up such a large proportion of a bank's customers? It seems the most enormous public relations gaffe to be talking about "thinking big" when banks are closing small branches that serve big communities in little villages and parts of towns.

Mr. Salter

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his contribution, but does he not think that it is entirely appropriate that Sir Anthony Hopkins was selected to feature in the Barclays advertisement? After all, he made his reputation in "The Silence of the Lambs" by eating people.

Mr. Loughton

I am grateful for that contribution, which I saw coming. It is almost a question of dog eats dog in this instance.

I want to touch on the issue of urban regeneration, brought up by the hon. Member for Waveney. Urban regeneration is all about increasing jobs and enhancing the environment and housing. Communities are not just a group of bric boxes; they need centres and facilities—especially for young people—shops, transport links, health centres and doctors. In walking away, as the hon. Member for Waveney put it, Barclays, Lloyds and other banks seem to have delivered a large vote of no confidence in the whole regeneration process, both in urban and rural areas. It is a severe blow to the aim of increasing facilities for people, a severe blow to the aim of attracting businesses into newly regenerated areas and a severe blow to those businesses already in the area, which may be clinging on by the skin of their teeth.

I am sure that banks could find other roles within communities—as business advice centres, for example—that accentuate the provision of customer services offered by them until now. There is interaction between banks and post offices, as several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, said. It seems crass that Barclays is carrying out a three-month trial with 270 branches of the post office in Cornwall. Surely, we need to see the results of those trials before the BC cataclysm starts in the next couple of weeks. It makes one wonder whether that is just another PR red herring from the bank, which is not really listening, although it claims to do so.

Many hon. Members made comments appropriate to the experiences of people in their constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk mentioned the security element of transporting cash and the cost of travel, especially in rural areas. The hon. Member for Reading, West said that the closures come at a time when banks are reporting record profits, so it represents an extraordinary PR gaffe. Certainly, in the case of Barclays, which has behaved worst of all in terms of not consulting Members of Parliament before launching the closures, it is a case of saying, "I hear what you say" without actually listening, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said. I must congratulate my hon. Friend on mentioning so many business men and traders in his short speech.

The debate has been interesting. The hon. Member for Waveney has done the House a service by raising the subject, and I hope that any representatives of banks who are here today or who read reports of the debate will take notice of what has been said. The problem caused by the closures is complex. There will be a problem of unemployment, a problem of access denied, especially people with disabilities and the elderly, such as Mr. Baldry, who was mentioned by the hon. Member for Waveney. Another piece of the mortar that keeps communities together is being chipped away and the communities of the future, which should be regenerated, will suffer yet another setback. It signifies a vote of no confidence in the regeneration of less well-off areas in both towns and rural areas. Banks should do much better and listen properly.

I conclude by quoting a sobering statistic. In this country, more than one in three people change their spouse, yet fewer than one in five changes their bank. Perhaps, in the area of banking, there will be a higher rate of divorce, or threatened divorce, unless banks prove to be a more loving partner.

12.19 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin)

We have had a good debate and it is evident that hon. Members of all parties have strong feelings about its subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) has raised an important issue. I have a distant memory of his constituency, as I was a waiter at Pontin's in Lowestoft in a previous incarnation. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) treated us to an entertaining—I do not lose sight of the importance of this matter—account of the sit-in that occurred in her constituency. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) treated us to a terrifying vision of what might happen in Worthing if direct action were to spread that far.

As has been said, banks play an important part in the stability of local communities. I am sorry to say that in their drive for greater profits—it was pointed out that their recent profits have been huge—they are abandoning any sense of social responsibility. Increasingly, banks are interested only in servicing the prosperous, and the latest round of Barclays closures serves only to illustrate that trend. No amount of exhortation from me or any other politician is likely to make the slightest difference to what are essentially hard-nosed commercial decisions, although I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and others in their plea for Barclays to review plans, especially for closures in regeneration areas. The most useful role that the Government can play is to help to develop alternatives. That is why it is important that the Post Office remains in the public sector and why we are encouraging it to invest heavily so that it can provide customers in small or poor communities with a range of financial services that were hitherto provided only by banks.

One alternative that is becoming more widespread is the development of agency agreements between banks and post offices. Such agreements provide local post offices with additional business that can be crucial to sustaining viability and a valuable public service and are, therefore, a double benefit for the community. The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. We have already embarked on an investment programme worth almost £500 million, to equip all post offices with a modern, online computer system enabling them to extend the banking facilities that they can offer on behalf of banks and building societies. That will be of considerable value in rural and urban areas from which the banks have withdrawn.

Only two weeks ago, we debated in Westminster Hall the closure of banks in Northumberland, at the other end of the country. Particular reference was made to the town of Belford, where a local bank—I think that it was a Barclays branch—was being closed. However, the local post office already had an agency agreement with two or three other financial institutions and was providing their services. A clear alternative was therefore available in that small town, and I hope that such arrangements will be emulated in other parts of the country. The Post Office already has successful agency agreements with the Co-operative bank, Lloyds TSB and Alliance and Leicester for the provision of free banking services to their customers. The services include both withdrawals and paying in, and many post offices now offer foreign currency exchange, which shows that such arrangements can work to the mutual satisfaction of the banks, the Post Office and their customers.

I shall not tell the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) that I hear what he says about post offices, but I take this opportunity to restate what the Government have repeatedly made clear: anyone who wants to continue collecting their pension or benefit from a post office will be able to do so. I add one other point: it is no good signing petitions calling for post offices or banks to stay open if their services are not used. People must make use of local services or they will disappear. That applies to post offices as much as to banks.

As hon. Members have mentioned, Barclays is carrying out a three-month trial in 270 post offices in Cornwall to see how its services can be delivered. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that it is particularly unfortunate that the bank has nevertheless decided to proceed with its major programme of closures before seeing how the experiment is working. I said when this subject was last debated that I regard that action as premature.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that banks currently enjoy a high level of customer loyalty. They cannot expect that to continue if it is not reciprocated. A number of banks have recently attracted a good deal of adverse publicity over their plans to charge for withdrawals at cash machines. I am glad to see that they are now reviewing that plan in light of the public's anger. That is a demonstration that public opinion can, with a little help from the Government, make a difference, even with such apparently hardhearted institutions. Banks cannot, on the one hand, argue that branch closures make commercial sense because more cost-effective banking services can be offered by other means—telephone, internet, direct debit, cash machines and so on—and, on the other hand, expect their customers to pay higher charges for using those so-called more cost-effective technologies. They cannot have it both ways.

At the end of the day, the banks' customers must themselves make a commercial decision. If their bank fails to continue to meet their banking needs, they may consider transferring their business to one that does, either directly at a local branch, or through an agency agreement with the local post office. That sort of market pressure sometimes works. Some hon. Members will recall that in the 1970s, Barclays was forced to rethink its investment in South African defence bonds. Many local authorities that had bank accounts with Barclays and many individuals—including me, although I doubt whether the withdrawal of my modest account made a great deal of difference to the bank's corporate strategy—forced the bank to review its attitude towards its investment policy.

That sort of popular uprising can sometimes work, when appealing to the better nature of the banks might not. I note that Members of the National Assembly for Wales are calling for the closure of the Assembly's £3 billion account with Barclays. That ought to ring a bell or two in the appropriate quarter, even if what we say in Parliament does not have quite the same impact. That could easily spread, unless Barclays starts to take more interest in the welfare of its customers. Only yesterday, for instance, the banks involved in the Link network succumbed to public pressure.

It is disappointing to see Barclays closing branches in an area where the benefits of the Government's investment of public money in regeneration are just beginning to bear fruit. As I said, such a move can help to undermine the viability of local shopping and commercial centres. There can be little doubt that such closures will represent a setback for the SRB partnership, because it will restrict access to banking services for local people and businesses. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. Other areas that have benefited from the investment of public money in regeneration schemes are being hit by Barclays bank branch closures. We should also bear it in mind that, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, not only Barclays is at fault. Barclays has been mentioned a lot, and rightly so, but other banks are doing the same.

I am only too happy to add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and the other hon. Members who have spoken this morning, in calling on Barclays bank to reconsider its strategy. However, I am under no illusion—the most effective pressure on Barclays is likely to be customers voting with their feet.