Ian Lavery

Absolutely. It is essential and that is the whole reason behind this debate. I will get back to that. I was more or less guaranteed, unofficially, that we had qualified in Bedlington. I was dumbfounded to see, when Link’s assessment was published some months later, that it suggested no additional services—no action to support the elderly woman from Bedlington station who banked in person on a weekly basis on Front Street, used the opportunity to speak with trusted members of staff without worrying about falling prey to scammers, met her friend for a coffee on Bedlington Front Street and took the opportunity to visit some local shops and spend a few pounds in the process. There was no assessment of the impact on that woman, on other residents or on local businesses of allowing high street banking to be lost with no banking hub provided; no assessment of the impact on people like her who are now travelling to a neighbouring town and spending their money there instead. On inspection, it appeared that we had been turned down because there was a bank in Cramlington located 0.1 km closer to Bedlington Front Street, as the crow flies, than the regulations suggested were appropriate. That is why we were declined—because of 0.1 km—and it is time that that sort of thing was addressed. We need to look at issues in the community such as deprivation, elderly people and those who, as the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned, are in desperate need of facilities on the high street. I immediately applied to Link and, as advised by its parliamentary liaison officer, I submitted an appeal, which was summarily dismissed without much discussion. I emphasised that Bedlington, as the fourth-largest town in Northumberland, should not need to use facilities in other towns.