Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Adam Jogee Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill will enhance the UK’s resolution regime by giving the Bank of England a more flexible toolkit to respond to bank failures. The Bill creates a recapitalisation mechanism that ensures that certain costs of managing the failure of banking institutions do not fall to the taxpayer. It strengthens protections for public funds and financial stability, while supporting the competitiveness and growth of the UK financial sector by avoiding placing new up-front costs on the banking sector. It is therefore an important Bill that underpins this Government’s vision to promote growth and economic stability.

The policy in the Bill builds on the proposals set out in consultation by the previous Government. I thank the previous Government—I do not always do that, by the way—for the work they did with the Bank of England on the consultation and on the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK, back in March 2023. The Bill provides the Bank of England with greater flexibility to manage the failure of small banks, and thereby embeds lessons learned from the volatility in the UK banking sector in 2023, notably that arising from the failure of SVB UK. I hope, given their origins, that these proposals will be welcomed by hon. Members from across the House.

The resolution regime was created by the Banking Act 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis. It provides the Bank of England with a set of tools to manage the failure of financial institutions in a way that limits risks to financial stability, public funds and the UK economy. The regime was introduced in recognition of the global consensus that reforms were needed to end “too big to fail” and to ensure that, where necessary, financial institutions can be supported to fail in an orderly fashion. This regime has been developed and steadily added to by a series of successive governments over the past decade. That work has given the UK a robust regime that reflects relevant international standards and supports the UK’s role and reputation as a leader in financial regulation, enhancing confidence in our financial system and making the UK a more secure and attractive place in which to invest.

The resolution regime was last used to resolve Silicon Valley Bank UK, the UK subsidiary of the US firm that collapsed in March 2023. The Bank of England used its transfer powers under the Banking Act 2009 to effect the sale of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC. That delivered good outcomes for financial stability, customers and taxpayers. All the bank’s customers were able to continue accessing their bank accounts and other facilities, and all deposits remained safe, secure and accessible. The Bank of England achieved the continuity of banking services, and maintained public confidence in the stability of the UK financial system.

The case of Silicon Valley Bank UK demonstrated the effectiveness and robustness of the resolution regime. However, as would be appropriate following any bank failure, the Treasury, the Bank of England and their international counterparts reflected carefully following this period of banking sector volatility, and following that reflection, the Government concluded that there was a case for a targeted enhancement to give the Bank of England greater flexibility to manage the failure of smaller banks such as Silicon Valley Bank UK.

At this point, I should explain that the Bank of England generally expects to place failing small banks into insolvency under the bank insolvency procedure, because their failures are not generally expected to meet the conditions that must be satisfied for the Bank of England to exercise its resolution powers. One of those conditions is that winding up the bank would not achieve the resolution objectives to the same extent as they would be achieved through the use of the resolution powers. Those objectives include protecting UK financial stability, covered depositors and public funds. When a failing firm enters insolvency, its eligible depositors are paid out up to £85,000 each within seven days by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, with higher limits for temporary high balances. This compensation is funded initially through a levy on the banking sector, and then, to the extent possible, recovered from the estate of the failed firm.

As was seen in the case of the Silicon Valley Bank, it is the Government’s view that in some cases of small bank failure, the public interest and resolution objectives are better served by the use of the resolution powers than by placing the firm into insolvency. Smaller banks are not required to hold additional funds and liabilities that could be bailed in during a resolution, so in a case in which a small bank does need to be resolved, additional capital may be required to support a successful resolution. For example, funds may be required for the bank in resolution to meet the minimum capital requirements for authorisation, or to sustain market confidence. At present, these recapitalisation costs have to be borne by public funds. The Government believe that that situation should be avoided to protect taxpayers from bearing those costs, and I hope that the Opposition agree; we shall see very shortly. To that end, the Bill aims to strengthen the protections for public funds when a small bank is placed into resolution.

Overall, this is a prudent set of reforms to ensure that the resolution regime continues to effectively limit risks to financial stability and, indeed, to taxpayers. The Bill does not make widespread changes to a regime that is working well, and it is important to emphasise that the bank insolvency procedure will continue to play an important role in managing the failure of small banks. That said, the Bill reflects the Government’s belief that a targeted set of changes is needed to ensure that, if necessary, existing resolution powers can be applied to small banks to achieve good outcomes for financial stability, while also protecting taxpayers. It achieves that by introducing a new recapitalisation mechanism, which allows the Bank of England to use funds provided by the banking sector to cover certain costs associated with resolving a failing banking institution.

The Bill does four main things. First, it expands the statutory functions of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, giving the Bank of England the power to require the FSCS to provide it with funds to be used to support the resolution of a failing bank. Secondly, it allows the FSCS to recover the funds provided to the Bank by charging levies on the banking sector. This mirrors the arrangements for funding payouts to covered depositors in insolvency, with the exception of the treatment of credit unions, to which I will return. Thirdly, the Bill gives the Bank of England an express ability to require a bank in resolution to issue new shares, facilitating the use of industry funds to meet a failing bank’s recapitalisation costs. Finally, following constructive debate in the other place, the Bill sets out a number of accountability measures that apply when the Bank of England uses the recapitalisation mechanism.

The Bill consists of eight clauses to deliver those key components. Clause 1 inserts a new section into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which introduces the new mechanism. It allows the Bank of England to require the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to provide the Bank with funds when using its resolution powers to transfer a failing firm to a private sector purchaser or bridge bank. It sets out what these funds can be used for, namely to cover the costs of recapitalising the firm and the expenses of the Bank of England or “relevant persons” in taking the resolution action. “Relevant persons”, for this purpose, means the Treasury, or a bridge bank or asset management vehicle operated by the Bank of England. The clause also allows the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recover the funds provided through levies.

Clause 2 sets out the reporting requirements for the Bank of England when it uses the recapitalisation mechanism, added to the Bill by the Government in the other place. The Bank must report to the Chancellor on the use of the recapitalisation mechanism and the stabilisation option that it was used in connection with. The Treasury can specify the content and timing of these reports, although if a final report is not produced within three months, the Bank of England must produce an interim report within that three-month period. The Chancellor must lay all reports before Parliament, although the clause allows discretion to omit any information that it would not be in the public interest to publish.

Clause 3, added by the Government in the other place, requires the Bank of England to notify the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees in this House and the other place—the Treasury Committee in the House of Commons, and the Financial Services Regulations Committee in the House of Lords—as soon as reasonably practicable after using the mechanism. Clause 4 requires the Bank of England to reimburse the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for any funds it provides that were not needed. Clause 5, also added by the Government in the other place, states that the Treasury must include guidance on the contents of reports on use of the mechanism in the code of practice, a statutory document that the Treasury must publish and to which the Bank of England must have regard, which explains how the resolution regime is intended to work in practice.

Clauses 6 and 7 make several consequential amendments to reflect the introduction of the new mechanism. Clause 6 primarily ensures that existing provisions relating to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme apply to the new mechanism in the same way. The most substantive provision specifies that the FSCS cannot levy credit unions to recoup funds provided under this mechanism, and was added to the Bill before its introduction to Parliament in response to valid concerns raised by industry. In clause 7, which contains mostly technical consequential amendments, the most substantive change gives the Bank of England the power to require a failing firm to issue new shares. That will make it easier for the Bank of England to use the funds provided by the FSCS to recapitalise the firm, by using the funds to buy the new shares. Clause 8 deals with procedural matters, including the provision that the Treasury may make regulations to commence the provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for shepherding the Bill through its successful passage in the other place. As I have mentioned, the Government made a number of amendments to the Bill in the other place following constructive debate, feedback and engagement. They include the insertion of the requirements for the Bank of England to report to the Treasury and notify parliamentary committees. The Government also amended the Bill to ensure that there was clarity over whose expenses could be covered by funds provided through the mechanism. In addition, the Government published a number of important documents during the early stages of the Bill’s passage, including a draft update to their code of practice setting out how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice.

There remains one area of the Bill that will require the attention of this House, namely the question of the scope of the mechanism—that is, which firms the Bank of England can use the mechanism on to support their failure. This was heavily debated in the other place, and reflects concerns about the risk of the mechanism being used on a wide range of firms, with the potential for large levies as a consequence. Those concerns led to an amendment to the Bill, intended to exclude from the scope of the mechanism those banks that already hold the full set of equity and debt resources—the so-called MREL, or minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—necessary to manage their own failure. The intent was to limit the scope to banks that are not required to hold additional capital resources, or banks that have not yet raised the full amount of additional resources to fully support their own failure. As I have alluded to, the Government note and appreciate the concerns being raised on this point, but as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made clear during the Bill’s passage in the other place, the Government are clear that this Bill is primarily intended for smaller banks. My predecessor made a written statement to the House on 15 October to reiterate this policy position.

However, after careful reflection, the Government continue to believe that some flexibility should remain in the legislation on this point, in order to avoid constraining the Bank of England’s ability to use the mechanism in a highly uncertain crisis scenario. Narrowing the scope would constrain the Bank of England’s optionality, particularly where it might be necessary to supplement the bail-in of a firm’s own resources with additional capital resources. I note that this is considered an unlikely outcome, rather than a central case. Nevertheless, the Government consider it important to avoid constraining that optionality, given that the alternative may be to use public funds. Ultimately, we want to protect the taxpayer. The Government will therefore table an amendment in Committee to remove the constraint on the scope of the application of the new mechanism.

More broadly, I want to express my gratitude to the banking sector, with which the Government have engaged proactively and constructively both before and since the Bill was introduced. The Government appreciate the feedback from industry, and we have reflected on it carefully to ensure that the Bill delivers a proportionate reform. As alluded to earlier, in response to feedback from industry, the Government carved out credit unions from levy contributions to recoup funds provided by the financial services compensation scheme under the recapitalisation mechanism. That was deemed appropriate because credit unions are out of scope of the resolution powers. It would therefore be disproportionate to require them to contribute towards costs under the mechanism.

The Government have also sought to provide reassurances to industry on the impact of this Bill. For example, by modelling the mechanism on the existing funding framework for depositor payouts, industry will be liable to pay levies only after the point of failure, avoiding new up-front costs to firms. Alongside the Bill, the Government also published a cost-benefit analysis that sets out our general expectation that lifetime costs for levy payers will generally be lower under the mechanism outlined in the Bill, compared with insolvency. I note again the draft updates to the code of practice, which the Government have published to provide additional transparency to industry and Parliament on how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am enjoying listening to the Minister’s speech, and I am learning quite a lot. Will she do me and the House a favour by sharing her thoughts on how I can best describe the benefits of this Bill to the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme when I go home tonight? I am sure she knows far better than me.

[Emma Reynolds]

My hon. Friend flatters me. It is not that easy to explain in simple terms, but I will do my best. Essentially, if a small bank is in trouble, it is better for it not to go into insolvency but instead to go through resolution to protect its depositors. In the case of SVB, only 14% of deposits were covered by the financial services compensation scheme, because the scheme only covers deposits up to the £85,000 threshold. Had public funds been required to facilitate the sale of SVB to another purchaser—in this case it was HSBC, but it could have been another institution—it would have had recourse to public funds. We are seeking to avoid a situation in which taxpayers in all our constituencies are on the hook for the failures of small banks. Where a bank has high-quality assets, which was the case for SVB, we can avoid the insolvency situation and pay out to depositors who have deposits above the £85,000 threshold. That resolution would be funded by the financial services compensation scheme and ultimately the banks, which contribute to the scheme through a levy. I hope that answer helps my hon. Friend—I am sorry that it was a bit long.

Stability is at the heart of the Government’s agenda for economic growth, because when we do not have economic and financial stability, it is working people who pay the price. We have to bear in mind what we are seeking to do, which is ultimately to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to ensure that we do not have to have recourse to public funds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I would like to start by welcoming both the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to their new positions. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West and I go way back, and I am enjoying now being able to address him as a Minister in His Majesty’s Government. I congratulate both of them. I did not quite agree with the shadow Minister’s description of the previous Government as “strong and stable”, but it was certainly worth a try—I mean that in all good spirit, honestly!

I thank the Minister for her speech and for her thorough but accessible explanation of the reach of the Bill. I shall look forward to talking about it with the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme tomorrow on the doorsteps of Town ward, where there is a by-election, which I look forward to the Labour candidate, Sheelagh Casey-Hulme, winning. I will make sure that I share the benefits of this Bill with the voters in my constituency when I knock on their doors tomorrow. This Bill has the good fortune of being supported by both sides of the House. We have heard that from the shadow Minister, so I want to reassure all colleagues that I shall speak very briefly indeed.

I have never received an invitation for a prawn cocktail in the City—although all good things come to those who wait—but the Bill and the issues contained in it are important and I am pleased to be here to speak in favour of them today. I have just a couple of points that I would like the Minister to touch on in his winding-up speech. Could he set out in greater detail how the payslips of workers in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be protected by the contents of the Bill? My constituents’ finances and livelihoods are obviously my focus, so I welcome anything and everything this Government do to protect and enhance their lives, or to promote growth across the economy. I would welcome anything the Minister can do to provide reassurance both on the growth agenda generally and on the specific benefits of the Bill.

Ahead of this debate, like all keen newbies, I read the Hansard report of the debate in the other place, and I hope Ministers have ensured that the legitimate points raised by the noble Lords were taken on board. I agree with the noble Lord who noted that small banks play a big role in our economy, and I thank the Economic Secretary and the shadow Minister for acknowledging that.

I echo the shadow Minister’s point about the importance of the City, which is an engine of growth that reflects the success of our country and the strength of our economy. However, my focus as the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is on ensuring that the growth, benefit and skill of that powerful engine reach up the M6 to junction 15, so that my constituents in God’s own county of Staffordshire can benefit from all that the City does.

This is a technical but important Bill, and I am pleased to be here today to give it my support.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Adam Jogee Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charters]

I always agree with my hon. Friend. He will recognise the impact the Bill brings not only to the Crown Estate but to GB Energy, which was one of the first initiatives implemented by the new Government. Taken together with the Great British Energy Bill, these are two pieces of thoughtful, complementary legislation that will support our green energy transition and economic growth—what a stark contrast to the previous Government, who not only ran out of ideas but failed to make the few ideas they had work in the first place.

The interaction between the Crown Estate Bill and the Great British Energy Bill is vital. In York Outer, we have a number of exciting projects that are ready to go and exemplify how these changes can drive forward our ambitions for a clean, secure energy future. For example, proposed battery storage facilities in York Outer could become critical national infrastructure for our local energy network, and Hessay solar farm was awarded funding from the contracts for difference scheme a few months ago. I welcome the exploration of wind projects, such as the Harewood Whin green energy park and the North Wigginton onshore wind project. Just today, we discovered that wind power was Britain’s largest source of electricity in 2024, topping gas-fired power plants for the first time in history. With the Crown Estate Bill, we can make even more projects like those in York Outer possible, unlocking clean energy for my region and beyond.

That takes me to the issue of energy security. Conservative Members, wherever they are, continue to oppose our publicly owned clean power company. Perhaps they have forgotten why it is so crucial to transfer power back into the hands of the British people. The myopic and naive approach of the last Government left our energy portfolio far too exposed. The Bill supports Britain’s flexibility and freedom to secure our own energy supply. It enables British households to be supported by British power—produced, owned and delivered by the British people. That is what Great British Energy is all about. We have all seen the cost of relying on foreign oil and gas. Families and businesses paid the price of our energy supply being dictated by foreign powers. Under this Government, that needs to stop—and it will stop. This Bill is a huge win for our energy independence.

But the benefits of this Bill go beyond energy. The Crown Estate is already a significant contributor to the public purse—last year it generated over £1 billion in net revenue profit, much of which was returned to the Treasury. By giving the Crown Estate the freedom to reinvest and modernise, we can grow that figure even further. That is not just a win for Government revenues; it is a win for taxpayers, as the money can be reinvested in public services and infrastructure in York Outer and across the UK.

I know that some Conservative Members, wherever they are, may worry about fiscal rules. I reassure them that although the Bill is radical in what it achieves, it does so in a sensible manner. By allowing the Crown Estate initially to use its cash reserves for investment, there is no immediate need to trigger new borrowing powers. This is therefore a measured approach that creates confidence for investors, while keeping fiscal discipline intact. It is not about ripping up the rulebook; it is about using the rulebook more effectively.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, which I am sure those on the Front Bench are enjoying. He mentioned sensibleness and moderation—both words I would use to describe my constituents. Will he join me in urging the Crown Estate, as it enjoys its new freedoms and powers in looking to invest for the future, to give a thought to the people, the place and the economy of Newcastle-under-Lyme?

[Mr Charters]

I was half-expecting my hon. Friend to mention Walleys quarry, although I cannot conceive of how he would link it to the Crown Estate Bill. He will agree that the additional revenue raised by the Bill will benefit his constituents as much as mine.

Over the past decade, the Crown Estate has returned £4.1 billion in net revenue profit to the Treasury. Just imagine how much more it could achieve with the freedom that this Bill provides—not just for the country, but for constituencies such as York Outer. This is what smart, forward-thinking legislation looks like: supporting businesses, securing energy and driving growth. I urge Members on both sides of the House, and particularly Conservative Members, wherever they are, to back this Bill and help us deliver a brighter, greener and more prosperous future.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his short speech to back up the points I have been making.

Let me look at some of the arguments presented today. The first is that the Bill will help to fix the NHS. I will not go into the arguments already made, but Members have made it clear that the NHS depends on primary services and, once people have gone through hospital, being able to discharge them into the community. The businesses that provide those services will be impacted by these tax changes. I am sure that there is not a Member here who does not already see that hospital beds are being blocked because there is insufficient capacity. People go into hospital and get mended but still need some respite before they go home, but the NHS cannot find places for them. If that is true now, then the situation will be even worse once these tax increases impact those businesses.

A&E is inundated with people who cannot get GP appointments. If the Government hit GPs, as has been outlined eloquently today, those services will be blocked and not available. Where do people go? They go to A&E. The Bill is meant to help the NHS, yet all the evidence from the people who support it and are part of the supply line say otherwise.

The Minister previously indicated that the people whose services are commissioned from the NHS can renegotiate those services and the payments for them. The very fact that the NHS is in difficulty and is having to be exempt from these national insurance changes is an indication that when they go with the bowl, they will be told that the cupboard is bare and no support will be given.

The second argument made today is that we need these changes to restore trust in politics, even though it was promised that working people would not be impacted. When evidence was given to the Treasury Committee, what did the representative from the Institute for Fiscal Studies say? They said that these changes will affect every working person. We cannot hide behind the argument that it is being done for the good of trust in politics. In fact, it will undermine trust in politics.

Another argument that was made is that we have no choice. The Government already made choices, even before this Budget. They chose to spend money even when they knew there was a black hole. They were spending the money that they want to raise from these national insurance contributions on wage increases, quangos and other things. Recently, they will not even tell us how much they are spending. The Energy Secretary went to COP and came back and told us of a £300 billion bill coming down the road for our sin of industrialising in the past, and he will not tell us how much we will have to pay. We gave away the Chagos islands, and we are going to pay for that but it is secret.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am enjoying listening to the right hon. Member. He is an esteemed former Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, so I defer to his experience. He is setting out his opposition to the measures in the Bill. Now that he has referenced the black hole, can he tell us what he would do to address the legacy of the previous Government?

[Sammy Wilson]

This is a mentality—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course, agrifood is another sector that I had not mentioned, along with hospitality, food processing, all the charitable sectors and some that are supporting the health industry—all are affected by it; they cannot escape it. I believe the impact will be far worse than what the Government are hoping for. Of course, as a result of the side effects of this measure, the revenue that is hoped for might not even be obtained.

[Adam Jogee]

For accuracy, I want to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that I am far more likely to be seen reading the Antrim Guardian than The Guardian.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am pleased to hear it. I certainly do not read The Guardian, and I certainly do not share the view, held by some of its readers, that we should pay more taxes.

In closing, the Government have a huge responsibility to tax wisely and to spend wisely, and I do not think they have got that equation right. In fact, they are spending recklessly in many areas, and taxing recklessly as well. That will impact on their long-term objectives, but it will also impact on the lives of our constituents day to day.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I have always respected the right hon. Gentleman, but I think it is important for us not to deny the seriousness of the situation that we face with the black hole in the public finances. Combined with the lashing out at independent economic institutions, it suggests that he has more in common with Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng than perhaps we thought. I watched my party lurch towards an ideological extreme and deny reality, and we spent years in opposition as a result. The shadow Chancellor risks taking his party down the same path.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

T2. My constituency’s beer and pub sector makes a significant contribution to the economy, both locally and nationally. Our 76 pubs and two breweries generate £23 million in tax receipts each year. Will the Chancellor work with the sector to unlock its growth potential, in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across our country?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I know that Newcastle-under-Lyme and, indeed, the whole county of Staffordshire have a proud brewing tradition, and my hon. Friend will be an excellent champion of breweries in his constituency. Supporting pubs and breweries is very important for me as a Minister. Indeed, on my first day in the Treasury’s Darlington economic campus, I visited Durham brewery—it was a work visit—where I heard from the Society of Independent Brewers and associates about the huge contribution that breweries make to British society. Further details will be set out by the Chancellor tomorrow.

Banking Services: Rural Northumberland

Adam Jogee Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tulip Siddiq]

No Adjournment debate would be complete without an intervention from the hon. Member, so I am glad he intervened; I was waiting for him to do so. I share his frustration about the slowness of the roll-out—I pushed for it when I was in opposition and asked why it was taking so long. I will address this point in my speech, but I can reassure him that with as much influence as I have in our office, we have been asking for the banking hubs to be set up and ready. We are hoping to achieve 100 banking hubs by the end of this year, but I am conscious that they take a long time to set up. It is to do with the planning process, but that is not an excuse. I would like to speed up the roll-out, because I feel it has been dragging on for a long time. I absolutely share his frustration.

As the hon. Member might know, 60 banking hubs have already opened. As I said, we anticipate that 100 will be open at the end of this year, but I agree that it is frustrating to have to wait and watch. We want them to be up and running so that our constituents can make good use of them. We want to ensure that the hubs mean that people and businesses can withdraw and deposit cash, because we know that people still use it. They will deposit cheques, pay bills and make balance inquiries. They will also contain dedicated community bankers from the largest banks in the area on a rotating basis, to help people and businesses carry out wider banking services.

The decisions on the locations of future banking hubs will be made by LINK, which is the banking industry’s cash co-ordinating body. It will consider criteria such as population size, the number of retailers in the community and the availability of alternative bank branches. Communities can ask LINK to carry out an assessment of the local area; I urge my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) and for Hexham to make to LINK the case that has so convincingly been made to me. At the end of the day, we have asked it to make the decisions, but I can help in the process as well.

Looking forward, I expect the banks to consider carefully whether the needs of a local community are being adequately served when thought is given to where the banking hubs should be rolled out. However, I also want the industry to ensure that the range and quality of banking services provided in hubs are delivering for customers up and down the country. There is no point in having a banking hub if it does not meet the specific requirements of the town.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to her place. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suspect that the Minister will want to note, as I do, the passing of Nicky Gavron, who was a Deputy Mayor of London, a very good friend of mine and a constituent of the Minister’s. She died on 30 August, and I wanted to ensure that it was acknowledged in the House.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) on securing this important debate, in which I have two quick questions to put to the Minister. First, will she outline what conversations she has had with the banks to ensure that they put people over profit? I am very proud to represent Newcastle-under-Lyme. I know that she has not visited; if she had, she would agree that it is the most beautiful place in our country. Secondly, how can we ensure that the importance of accessibility is acknowledged not just in words but in deeds?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and associate myself with his comments about Nicky Gavron, who was my constituent and a great friend. She worked with us in London Labour when my hon. Friend was—dare I say it—a very young man. We worked with her for many years, and it was very sad to see her go.

I can assure my hon. Friend that I speak to the banks every day to ensure that they know what our values are and how we want them delivered. Beyond banking hubs, I am saying to them that communities need key banking services to ensure that they have accessibility, cash withdrawal and deposit services—particularly our local businesses and charities, which often deal in cash and need convenient ways to deposit their takings, but also everyone who uses cash to make everyday purchases.

According to UK Finance, cash remained the second most popular payment method last year, so it is not right to dismiss and question the idea that people still use cash. Overall data shows that cash coverage in the UK remains good. According to Financial Conduct Authority analysis, over 99% of the UK urban population is within one mile of a free withdrawal cashpoint, and over 98% of the UK rural population is within three miles of one. I hope that that reassures hon. Members.

However, it is important that coverage is maintained, so I welcome the FCA’s forthcoming rules on access to cash, under which designated banks and building societies will be required to assess the impact of a closure on a community’s ability to access cash. If a closure results in a gap in provision, firms will be required to put in place a new service that meets the community’s needs. That could mean a new ATM deposit service or a banking hub. Where a new service is recommended, firms will need to ensure that it is place before they are able to close the existing service, to avoid gaps emerging in access to cash. Those rules will come into force on 18 September, which I am sure will be welcomed by Members across the House.

We recognise that banking has changed through a shift towards online and mobile access, which mean that customers have more ways to access banking services conveniently and securely. Banking users have clearly taken up those opportunities; recent FCA data shows that almost nine in 10 adults bank online. However, that does not mean that everyone has the means, confidence and skills to use those services, as many hon. Friends have said. We recognise that although we live in an increasingly online world, part of the population, including in my constituency, remain digitally excluded.

As a Government, we are committed to improving connectivity and digital access for all constituents. We will continue to support the roll-out of a modernised broadband infrastructure through Project Gigabit, closing the digital divide for remote areas of Britain. The Government have already started the renewed push to reach full gigabit coverage by 2030. This month we have announced funding of £800 million to improve broadband for over 300,000 rural homes and businesses. Thinkbroadband reported in August of this year that approximately 84% of the UK can now access a gigabit-capable connection. Although the majority of premises will be covered by commercial activity or Project Gigabit, the Government are considering alternative ways to improve connectivity for the parts of the UK where that is not possible. If constituents or Members write to me, we will bear their areas in mind.

I thank everyone for their thoughtful contributions, but this will not be my last speech on this matter. I want to take my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, and other Members who have spoken, along with me on my journey, working together with the financial services sector and the public to deliver financial services. I want to mention quickly the post office network—[Interruption.] I don’t have time, do I, Madam Deputy Speaker? You are looking at me. I will just say that the Government are committed to looking for ways to strengthen the post office network. The Secretary of State met the chair of the Post Office to discuss that and other important issues, and the Government protect the post office network by setting minimum access criteria to ensure that 99% of the UK population lives within three miles of a post office, with around 11,000 branches in the UK.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been very kind and allowed me a bit more time, so I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend once again—