Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities
Ann Davies Excerpts(4 days, 3 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I will call Ann Davies to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the mover of the motion and the Minister. As no other Member has approached the Minister, nobody else will be speaking, unless it is through an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered banking hubs in rural and post-industrial communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is unfortunate really that this is a 30-minute debate. So many people have been in touch to make interventions or speeches, including the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), but as you mentioned, Sir Desmond, it is impossible to fit everybody in.
I am pleased to lead the debate on this important topic. Access to cash and banking services is a pressing issue in rural and post-industrial communities. I hope to outline why we desperately need to increase the availability of services through banking hubs in those areas.
Jim Shannon
I will just say that so many people are here because the hon. Lady has brought up a subject matter that is worth more than 30 minutes of debate. Does she agree that the only goals that banks seem to have are bigger dividends and more profit? When they close branches there is a dramatic effect on rural life in her constituency and in mine. Is it not time for banks to look not at profit, but at the people and customers that they should be supporting?
Ann Davies
I totally agree, and I will come on to that later. In 2006, cash accounted for 62% of all payments in the UK. It now accounts for around 14%, with some forecasts taking it down to 6% in 2031. However, if we look beyond those percentages, we can see that cash still plays a vital role in people’s lives. For many, cash is indeed king.
New figures from Link, which accounts for 77% of the UK’s entire ATM network transactions, show that cash continues to be central to how millions of people manage their money. In 2025, £76 billion was withdrawn from Link ATMs, in 1.27 billion transactions recorded across the year. Link notes:
“While ATM use naturally evolves as more people choose digital payments…cash remains a trusted and widely used option.”
Link data shows that the most popular places in which to use cash remain convenience stores, supermarkets and payments between friends and families.
Dr Savage
In my rural constituency, mobile banking hubs, including mobile vans and post offices, are absolutely vital, especially for older constituents who still prefer to use cash, and for rural businesses that need to pay in cash. Recently, services in Hullavington and Minety were suspended, which was a real problem. Does the hon. Lady agree that in rural communities, mobile banking vans are not a luxury, but an essential service, not just for the people using cash but for the businesses and pubs where cash payments are made?
Ann Davies
Absolutely. Unfortunately, as of December last year, those post office vans no longer accept cheques. Some people of a certain generation still use cheques, but those cannot now be paid in by using a post office van, as we have in our village. Someone must physically go to a bank to pay in a cheque, which makes it very difficult for the elderly, especially given that in my area we do not have public transport either.
Removing local banking services risks deepening financial exclusion and placing additional strain on already vulnerable adults. Despite cash and in-person banking still being integral to many communities across the UK, they are becoming harder and harder to access. That is demonstrated by the number of bank closures across Wales. As the Welsh Affairs Committee has noted, the number of bank and building society branches fell from 695 in 2012 to 435 in 2022.
Ann Davies
I promised the hon. Member for Waveney Valley that he could intervene on me, and that will be my final intervention. I am so sorry.
Adrian Ramsay
I was waiting for the appropriate point to pre-empt the fact that the hon. Lady is clearly talking about banking hubs in rural areas. In my constituency of Waveney Valley, the market town of Bungay has been told that it cannot have a banking hub because there is already one seven miles away in Harleston, but of course in rural areas, proximity does not necessarily mean accessibility when it comes to travel times or public transport access. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in determining the criteria for banking hubs, real accessibility in rural areas needs to be accounted for, and there needs to be flexibility in the system to achieve that?
Ann Davies
Absolutely. The data is there for all.
The closures disproportionately impact less populated areas, as the distance to travel to bank branches is greater. For instance, data from 2008 to 2018 show that the greatest increases in travel distance to the nearest bank branch were in Montgomeryshire, Clwyd South, Arfon, Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and Brecon and Radnorshire. Those rural and less populated areas also tend to have older populations and less reliable internet, and experience the unique nature of rural poverty.
Ann Davies
I am so sorry, but I am going to finish.
Restricting access to cash also affects many of those living in rural and post-industrial areas. As the Financial Conduct Authority has noted, digitally excluded older people, people in poor health, those with lower financial resilience and those with lower financial capability depend more on cash. We have seen that play out in my constituency, where we have recently experienced the closure of the last bank in the town of Ammanford—a Lloyds Bank on Quay Street. The closure will leave Ammanford—a town with an area population of 23,709—without a full-service bank branch. It will impact not only the town itself but the surrounding communities of Brynamman, Glanamman, Tycroes, Llandybie, Betws and the wider Amman valley.
The decision demonstrates a worrying lack of understanding of the needs of rural and post-industrial communities. For many, online banking is not an option. For example, broadband coverage in Carmarthen is significantly below national standards. Gigabit in Carmarthenshire is 41% compared with 78% in the UK. Superfast broadband is 85% compared with 96% in the UK. Those figures demonstrate that large parts of the county, including Ammanford and its surrounding villages, lack access to the high-speed internet that is required for secure and consistent digital banking. In practice, that means that online banking is unreliable or inaccessible for many households. Mobile banking apps do not function properly, especially in areas with poor signal and slow connections.
Digital alternatives cannot replace in-person services, especially for vulnerable groups such as older adults, those with disabilities and people managing complex financial needs. A significant proportion of residents are elderly, vulnerable or without access to transport, and the prospect of travelling long distances to the nearest branch is unrealistic and unjust.
I have had many constituents contact me to express their deep concern about the closure of the Lloyds branch. One constituent told me:
“We really desperately need this facility now. I don’t think any consideration has been given to the disabled, elderly, or even younger people who cannot travel to other towns. Although I understand the Post Office will absorb some customers, it does not provide all banking needs.”
He continued:
“I understand why the banks have to close some branches, but Lloyds’ support in the past has been invaluable to this area. With a brain-injured partner, it is nearly impossible to travel to Gorseinon. This would be a major trip causing unnecessary distress and anxiety for him; disabled parking in Gorseinon doesn’t meet his needs either.”
Cash has a social value, too. Another constituent said:
“I’m old school and still like to have cash—giving my grandchild pocket money, giving tips if I go out, taxis—the list could go on.”
It is clear that cash does not just facilitate economic exchange; it creates bonds and ties within communities, an aspect that is important to smaller and rural areas.
Where do we go from here? The Federation of Small Businesses Wales has said:
“While it is unrealistic to expect a return to high street banks on every street, it is important that new models are further developed—such as banking hubs—to ensure that these services are available locally.”
Banking hubs are a key alternative to communities that have lost access to bank and building society branches. They offer easy access to face-to-face cash and banking in the communities that have lost their bank branches.
I welcome that the Government have pledged to establish at least 350 banking hubs across the UK. In Wales, there are 12 shared banking hubs, with more in the process of being set up in Gorseinon and Caergybi—Holyhead. However, I note that none are in my constituency of Caerfyrddin—not one.
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 gave the Financial Conduct Authority responsibility for maintaining cash deposit and withdrawal access, although not wider banking services. The FCA’s rules came into force in September 2024. Those rules require banks not to close their services in communities until they have carried out an assessment showing that the closure would not impact withdrawal and deposit services in that area. Those assessments are conducted by Link.
While such a safeguard is welcome, the process itself seems to overlook rural and post-industrial areas. It does not allow for discretion to be applied to consider the needs of those communities. For instance, in the case of Ammanford, Link assessed that there was no need for additional services like a banking hub, given that Ammanford did not meet the population threshold of 10,000 people living near the high street. It said that Ammanford had 7,444 adults living nearby, which is still a significant number, but 23,709 people live in that surround. As we know, in post-industrial areas, the town merges into the villages—or the villages merge into the town.
Residents have made it clear that they are finding it incredibly challenging losing their only banking facility. A petition is being circulated in response to the decision, and it has already gathered hundreds of signatures—I urge all in the Chamber to share my online petition. I urge Link to engage with local stakeholders, including businesses, councillors and residents, to ensure that the assessment reflects actual community needs, including by establishing a banking hub in the town of Ammanford.
Can the Minister set out how the Government can accelerate the establishment of banking hubs in rural and post-industrial communities as part of their plans? What recent assessments have been made of the adequacy of the cash access review process to account for the unique needs of those communities? Banking hubs are a lifeline for communities that are already under strain. We need prudent policymaking in this area from the Government, so that constituents like mine are not overlooked for such important services. Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd.
Property Taxes
Ann Davies Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I begin by referring the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I represent a rural, agricultural community. As we look forward to a Budget for Christmas, this Labour UK Government’s last autumn Budget remains of significant concern. The wide divide between rural Wales and Westminster was made clear as day last year when the Chancellor announced plans to restrict full inheritance tax relief from April next year to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property. Combining APR and BPR means that the asset value of the tools and the machinery necessary to operate a farming business are affected, as well as the agricultural land and property.
While the Government maintain that this policy will affect only about 500 estates a year and that small family farms will not be affected, the calculations of the Farmers’ Union of Wales and NFU Cymru show otherwise. When I told the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs that 92% of one local accountancy firm’s clients would be hit, it was totally dismissed, but now even the producers of the research used by this Government to justify their plans have conceded that working farmers are more likely to suffer under the policy than the wealthy.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Over half of UK farms have a net value of over £1.5 million. Farmers are already worried about the family farm tax and are now looking at the potential tax rises that the Government are floating for the upcoming Budget, including increased rates of inheritance tax and other forms of property taxes. These are our food producers, and they are writing to me to ask why they should continue to sow the seeds. Does the hon. Lady agree that farmers need a break?
Ann Davies
Absolutely, and I will come on to that in a minute. In Wales, between 75% and 90% of farmers will be affected by the policy, according to NFU Cymru and FUW.
It is clear that this Government’s APR changes will not hit tax-avoiding wealthy land hoarders. Instead, they will punish working farmers in Wales, whose income dropped by an average of 34% last year, forcing many to sell what their parents and grandparents spent lifetimes building. And it is not just farm business owners. Family Business UK estimates that the changes will cause a £15.5 million reduction in GVA in my constituency of Caerfyrddin alone, along with the loss of 282 full-time jobs.
The new inheritance tax rules will be introduced amid mounting financial pressures on our farmers, from the financial implications of bluetongue restrictions and testing requirements to the effect of Wales’s hottest summer on record on crops and pasture. Our rural businesses will also suffer, with car garages, food wholesale businesses and uPVC project businesses among those in my constituency that are hard hit by this Government’s BPR changes. All employ hundreds of my constituents.
We cannot afford to lose our rural businesses or our family farms. We cannot lose the knowledge, the heritage and the community—the work that sustains and feeds our nation. Ahead of the autumn Budget at the end of November, I call on the Government once again: please reverse these changes before it is too late. Diolch yn fawr.
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
Ann Davies Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he will see in due course, when the industrial strategy is published, that we have been thinking across Government about the role of infrastructure as an enabling investment to unlock other types of investment, and to create great opportunities for people and economies where they can afford to live and are able to get around to access those opportunities.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
The Chief Secretary’s statement made no mention of rural areas. When it comes to infrastructure, Welsh rural communities have for decades lost out, with a lack of investment in both our physical and digital infrastructure. Unfortunately, the £445 million on rail does not come anywhere near rural Wales. What are the Government doing to prioritise investment in disadvantaged rural areas in Wales?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for her question. Without wanting to go through the entire infrastructure strategy or spending review, there is significant money coming to all parts of the country. The Chancellor has increased day-to-day spending by £190 billion and capital spending by £120 billion, so I am confident that the hon. Member’s constituents will benefit from an improved national health service, improved road maintenance and improved digital infrastructure. There is a very long list of things people will be able to experience, and they will see the difference made by a Labour Government as we deliver on our promise of change.
Regional Growth
Ann Davies Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for championing jobs and livelihoods in her constituency and the region, and for welcoming the historic £1.8 billion of investment announced today for transport infrastructure. As she rightly alludes to, the announcement is about transport infrastructure, but the Government are doing much more to improve lives, wages and communities in every part of the country. We will be setting out further information in the coming weeks in relation to other types of infrastructure as well as how, through the industrial strategy, we are supporting skills, jobs and training opportunities for people so they can get better jobs and better pay. I note that, of course, the transport funding announced today will serve one of the largest advanced manufacturing zones in the United Kingdom, which will be great news for her constituents and great news for the country.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Following on from High Speed 2, there is a new chapter in the great Welsh train robbery—I am sure hon. Members know where this is going. The East West Rail project between Oxford and Cambridge has been classified as an England and Wales project. I have lived in Wales all my life, and I have got to say that it is nowhere near the Welsh border. The last time I looked, neither of them were anywhere near Wales. Honestly, will the Chief Secretary explain why the Treasury has made the farcical decision again to deny Wales millions of pounds in funding, which we desperately need to transform our dilapidated, crumbling rail network?
Darren Jones
I think that the hon. Member and I can agree on one important thing, which is the failed promises of the last Conservative Government, who made decisions that undercut investment in Wales and deprioritised Wales. She will know that we have a brilliant group of Labour MPs now representing Wales who have been making their case strongly for the Government to invest in Wales. We will be setting out further details of that investment at the spending review next week.
Farming and Inheritance Tax
Ann Davies Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I associate myself with the excellent speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop), who were all absolutely right to say that this Government are committed to standing shoulder to shoulder with British farmers and ensuring their voices are heard and their future is secured. Nowhere is this more vital than in Buckinghamshire, where farming is not just an industry, but an integral part of our local identity. It supports our economy, shapes our landscape and is woven into the fabric of our communities.
Since I was elected in July I have engaged closely with farmers across north Buckinghamshire, and I have been grateful to meet local agricultural and rural businesses in my constituency such as Boycott farm in Stowe and Hogshaw farm and wildlife park; I thank them for welcoming me to their world. These visits have reinforced my commitment to representing their interests and addressing the challenges they face.
I have been struck this afternoon as I listened to speeches from across the House by the inability of the Conservatives to confront and defend their own record in office. Time and again, the previous Government failed to stand up for Buckinghamshire farmers. As has been said, they failed to spend £358 million of the UK’s agricultural budget, and that money should have gone straight into the pockets of Buckinghamshire farmers. Instead, the Conservatives left it on the table, not because it was not needed, but because they could not be bothered to make sure that their policy to replace the basic payment scheme was completed on time. That was their attitude when in office. The gaps and the unanswered questions in the schemes left many farmers in my constituency in limbo, undermining their confidence and threatening their livelihoods.
When in government, the Opposition failed again when they negotiated trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, removing most tariffs on beef and lamb. Even the Conservative Cabinet Member responsible for negotiating the deal said it was a bad one. These deals have opened the floodgates to imports that threaten to undercut our domestic producers, leaving British farmers struggling to compete against lower-welfare and lower-cost alternatives. Our farmers deserve better. That is why this Government are determined to do things differently. We have committed, as others have said, £5 billion to the farming budget over the next two years. That is the largest investment in sustainable food production in our history, because we know that food security is national security. In the coming year alone, £2.4 billion will go directly to supporting British farmers, ensuring that they can thrive in a rapidly changing and uncertain world.
Callum Anderson
I would be happy to were there not too little time. These investments are about more than money. They represent a vision for a resilient and sustainable future. On the inheritance tax point, the Government’s approach is balanced and fair.
Winter Fuel Payment
Ann Davies Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It was only two months ago that Labour won a majority in the general election on a message of change. But in those two months the new Labour UK Government have refused to abolish the cruel two-child benefit cap and now seek to take away winter fuel payments of up to £300 from millions of pensioners across the UK, by limiting it to recipients of pension credit. Well, nothing has changed.
Some 68% of households in Carmarthenshire lived in homes with poor energy efficiency in 2022, and 60.4% of households in my Caerfyrddin seat live off the gas grid, often relying on oil as a heat source. But the price of oil is very volatile, and in winter we can see it going up by 20p or 30p a litre, causing uncertainty for people budgeting over the winter.
Not heating a home can have serious consequences. A cold home brings with it a higher risk of stroke, respiratory infection and falls or other injuries. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition estimated that nearly 5,000 excess winter deaths were caused by living in cold homes during the winter of 2022-23. And many older, vulnerable people have higher energy costs due to health reasons.
It is a shame that the Minister of State for Crime, Policing and Fire misspoke earlier this week, as the consideration of other options, such as a social tariff or different ways of means testing, would be welcomed. As constructive criticism, can the Government bring the winter fuel payment within the definition of a taxable income to ensure that pensioners get what they need?
In closing, I call on colleagues to consider whether they can justify—
