Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of face-to-face banking services in rural areas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. Banking services in rural areas have been decimated. While big banks make billions in profits, they close branches with impunity, turning their backs on customers and leaving small businesses struggling with the impact. Last year, Lloyds reported a £6.7 billion pre-tax profit and yet in the same period it shut 218 branches, with a further 95 to close this year. Sixty-four per cent of all bank and building society branches that were open in January 2015 have closed in the past 10 years, numbering more than 6,000. In my constituency, which covers about 450 square miles, we have one bank branch left, and I wonder how long that will be there.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the scale of closures is phenomenal and that while the banking hub roll-out is welcome in rural areas such as mine and hers, the scale of the closures is defeating that roll-out? We need an increase in the number of banking hubs to meet the demand on the streets.

[Caroline Voaden]

I will get to banking hubs in just a minute.

Why do we allow closures to happen? Why do the Government not act with urgency to turn around the decimation in rural banking, which has the biggest impact on the most vulnerable people—the elderly, the disabled—those who cannot use online services and areas where digital connectivity is so bad that using online services can literally be impossible? It is simply outrageous that banks have been able to get away with this to such an extent and at such speed. I call on the Labour Government to address the issue with urgency.

People still want to use in-person banking services, even young people and those who already bank online: 81% of UK adults say that they have accessed in-person banking services at least once in the past two years, while 48% say they have accessed in-person banking services every month. It is simply not true that everyone is happy to bank online all the time.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

In a remote area such as South Shropshire, just over half of my constituents have high-speed internet, so face-to-face banking is absolutely important. We have seen the issue in Bridgnorth, Church Stretton and Ludlow. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government have to take that into consideration? It is not one size fits all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely agree. On my tour this summer, I met someone who was frozen out of her bank. She could not get the confirmation code on her phone because she has no mobile phone signal, so her bank account is now closed to her. She will have to travel more than an hour to get to a bank to get back into her bank account. It is an absolute mess.

Face-to-face banking is simply essential for millions of people and thousands of small businesses across the UK. When a loved one has died and finances have to be sorted out, it is normal to want to speak to another human being, not to a chatbot. People might need emergency access to funds, to make a complicated transaction or to send money abroad—out-of-the-ordinary banking matters that chatbots simply do not understand and cannot help with. Businesses might want to take out a loan, or extend or increase borrowing. Yes, people could do that over the phone, but for many a face-to-face conversation is more manageable. The rapid and ruthless shift towards online banking may suit those of us who work odd hours, travel around a lot and would frankly find it hard to pop into our high street branch, but at the same time, it is potentially disenfranchising millions of people from banking services.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

In response to some of the things that the hon. Lady is describing, the last Conservative Government legislated to protect access to cash, but I think we now all recognise the need to legislate for access to face-to-face banking. Will she join me in calling on the Minister to support my In-Person Banking Services Bill to deliver more banking hubs?

[Caroline Voaden]

I will come on to the legislation passed by the previous Conservative Government in just a minute.

In rural areas, poor internet, non-existent public transport and a higher proportion of elderly residents who are less likely to manage their money online mean that losing the local bank can have a huge impact. The wipe-out in rural areas is mind boggling. A staggering 86% of people in rural areas have seen their closest bank branch—which 10 years ago was within a mile—close. For them, there is no alternative bank to switch to. As banks have closed, the impact of losing access to banking services has been disproportionately felt by those in rural areas, who simply cannot go to another bank in town. Instead, they are left navigating sporadic or non-existent public transport, having to set aside half a day for the outing just to visit the bank. It can be a major mission in a community that is poorly serviced.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine is large at 1,250 square miles and the population is elderly. The No. 25 bus runs every two and half hours. If a constituent needs to bank in Taunton, it takes five hours to get there and back. Does she agree that increasing face-to-face banking services, particularly in enormous constituencies such as mine, is crucial?

[Caroline Voaden]

I could not agree more. We are facing a perfect storm of decimated public transport; appalling digital connectivity that must be addressed, as we repeatedly say in this place; and closure of banking services. Those three make a toxic combination.

Consumers and small businesses are frustrated with the service they are left with, as is the case in Totnes in my constituency. In September last year, Lloyds announced it was closing the final bank in town, leaving residents without access to banking services beyond a couple of free ATMs and the post office. It seemed obvious to me that, when Lloyds closed its doors, the remaining banking services in the town would be insufficient and that it would get a banking hub. We have a thriving market once a week, where many people use cash. We have 120 independent high street businesses, an older than average population, very poor digital connectivity and poor public transport to other towns. Not only does the town have 13,500 residents, but thousands more people in surrounding villages use it for banking.

The cash access request that I submitted to Link was turned down. I appealed but, to my huge disappointment, Link upheld its original decision, despite my meeting officials from the Treasury and raising the matter with the Prime Minister.

[Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady’s description of using Link for a cash access assessment for banking hubs rings true in my experience of helping my community apply for one in the rural town of Holywell, which serves lots of villages. It is not properly understood how important access to cash is, not only for local people—and the age demographic point is also true of my constituency—but for local businesses, particularly rural ones. Does the hon. Lady agree that rural and semi-rural towns should be recognised in the outcomes of the review when it is published in October?

[Caroline Voaden]

I absolutely want to see that. When Link assesses rural locations, it considers whether alternative access to cash facilities are available within three miles or 30 minutes on public transport. For Totnes, it noted that alternative facilities were available within a 19-minute bus journey—that is on a really good day. But that is only relevant to those who live in the centre of Totnes. If someone starts from one of the many satellite villages that use the bank in Totnes, it is a completely different story. There may not even be a bus to get into Totnes to pick up the other bus to get to Paignton and the bank.

The impact on local residents and businesses will be familiar: queues at the post office, which become impossible in the run-up to Christmas; hundreds of extra customers for the post office, which has no extra space or staff to cope; and businesses less keen to accept cash, because the only place they can pay it in is the post office. If someone is running a shop on their own, as I did for six years, it is impossible to shut up shop and go down the road to queue at the post office, because they have to keep the shop open to make money.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Bridport in my constituency is sometimes referred to as Totnes-lite. Like Totnes, it has a high concentration of independent retailers, tradespeople and small businesses who rely on cash deposits. On average, a small or medium-sized enterprise deposits cash about 25 times a year and withdraws cash about 15 times a year. Groves Nurseries highlights the exact issue that my hon. Friend mentions: how to keep the business open, run a successful operation and drive to the nearest town every time there is a need to deposit or withdraw cash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

I could not agree more. It is really important that we protect access to cash. My residents do not want to feel that they are being forced into a cashless society. Small businesses used to use the bank’s night safe, but that option has now gone.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

There are lots of similarities between Coalville and Totnes, including a monastery just a few minutes away. The biggest issue is that banking hubs, although incredibly important, do not provide the excellent business banking services that businesses need. Does the hon. Member agree that the issue is about business support as well as cash access, and that we need to expand the theme of banking hubs?

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We have two banking hubs in my constituency, opened before the rules were tightened. People have said to me that even those banking hubs do not provide all the services they need. In a 21st-century banking offer for rural Britain, banking hubs are the obvious solution—rather than a branch of every bank—but they must be competent and capable of offering all the services that people need.

Five years ago, the rules for receiving a banking hub were much broader, and Dartmouth got one just in time. The current criteria for banking hubs are far too narrow. In September 2024, the Financial Conduct Authority substantially tightened the rules, placing the focus solely on access to cash. The current criteria completely discount all other reasons why someone might need to use a bank. They also do not take account of poor public transport and an older than average population. They ignore the fact that banks do so much more than just give out cash.

I urge the Government to expand the rules for granting a banking hub. I have met with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who shares my view that the current criteria are far too narrow. I heard the former Prime Minister tell the Chamber that a banking hub can be rolled out wherever a community needs one, but the policy that Link adheres to does not reflect that, so it must be changed. If necessary, we need legislation to make the banks listen. There simply must be a better minimum service coverage of banking hubs across the UK. So many MPs are campaigning for them that it is clearly a country-wide problem. We know that the banks can afford it, so for once, this is not a question of finding the money or funding. They can afford it.

The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, passed by the Conservative Government, gave the Financial Conduct Authority powers to protect cash access but, astonishingly, did not extend those powers to protecting wider banking services but limited them to cash. Back then, Labour tabled amendments to the Bill to extend the power to protect banking services, but they were not taken up by the Conservative Government. Now in government, Labour has been very slow to do what it pushed for in opposition.

I urge the Government to rediscover their passion for protecting banking services by amending the Financial Services and Markets Bill that is currently making its way through the other place. We must ensure that face-to-face banking services receive the same protections as access to cash, whether that be via banking hubs, as should be the case in Totnes, or via other means, such as increasing the provision in post offices. As the Post Office is in trouble these days, with many branches closing, surely there must be an all-encompassing solution to make these places viable.

Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords have tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and I wholeheartedly support it. It would require the Treasury to consider whether assessments following bank closures should extend beyond access to cash to evaluate local community needs for essential in-person banking services when making regulations. The answer is, “Yes. Absolutely, it should,” because banking is about more than just getting cash out of a hole in the wall. I hope that the Government will adopt the amendment.

I look forward to hearing the outcome of the Government’s access to banking services review, which is due to be published shortly. I am sure that it will lay bare the evidence of the real-world impact of bank branch closures and demonstrate that the Government must go further in ensuring that people can access banking services.

Having a bank account and being able to access a range of banking services are a necessity in modern society, not a luxury. The Government must rebalance things in favour of our high streets and communities and put an end to the favourable treatment for big banks, which repeatedly cut their services with no regard for the impact on the lives of their customers. Enough now—it is time that the Government took action to protect and restore face-to-face banking services across rural areas.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

My right hon. Friend raises another big argument that we could have on the issue of rural broadband, but it is worth making the point regarding internet connectivity that I was just coming on to. I know this is as painful in other constituencies as it is in Wyre Forest. According to the financial lives 2024 survey, adults living in rural areas were,

“disproportionately more likely to report having poor or no connectivity.”

We must also remember that many of our local businesses rely on face-to-face banking services. According to the House of Commons Library, an average small business deposits cash twice a month, withdraws cash once a month and gets change for their cash registers once a month. It is worth bearing in mind that, typically, we have about 3,500 businesses per constituency, so an awful lot of people rely on these services.

I remember the impact that was felt in 2015 when HSBC closed the last bank in Bewdley in my constituency; people were utterly dismayed. Happily, the post office stepped in and was able to help resolve the issues, but since then we have now discovered that that the post office is under threat. We are working on it, but it demonstrates the point that things are changing very quickly.

There is also a more subtle outcome of a sharp reduction in bank branches: the relationship between a bank and the local economy is being dramatically reduced, which has implications for our wider economy. Local branch managers living in a community, providing banking services to local businesses and understanding local economic opportunities as well as pressures, are well placed to understand the commercial value of a loan application by a local business. That is important.

An application for a business loan is usually something that business owners and managers want to get in place as fast as they can, but the reality is that applications for smaller business loans now take an average of nine months to be approved. That is not good for our local economies. Furthermore, banks need to lend money. That is the business they are in. Each loan creates a banking asset. Indeed, 95% of the money in circulation is the result of banks lending it into existence through fractional reserve banking. It is in the interest of both our banks and our economy that they lend, but if it takes too long, others will step in. That can be good, but it can be bad.

Private debt is gaining traction alongside private equity. Meanwhile, unregulated loan notes have been central to some recent mis-selling issues at the smaller end of the market. That is not the fault of the banks, but the lack of local banking services opens doors to alternatives, not all of which are properly understood, risk-assessed and regulated. However, we must recognise that banks are businesses. I do not want to be an apologist for banks, but they do provide a very important service, which they have to do in a profitable way. They have to make commercial decisions, and they have to consider the footfall in their branches and the take-up of digital banking.

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member says that banks have to make profits. Last year, Lloyds made £6.7 billion in profit. Does he agree that £6.7 billion is such an incredible amount of money that asking banks to put more money into maintaining services for customers across rural Britain is not an exceptional or particularly demanding ask? The money is there. Nobody needs to be making £6.7 billion of profit a year.

[Mark Garnier]

As I say, I am not an apologist for banks, and I am keen to ensure that we get a balanced argument. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is an awful lot of money, but it all comes down to what should be the right and proportionate response. I do not disagree with her fundamental point, but the question is slightly more complicated.

I will give the hon. Lady an example from my constituency. Not so long ago, I went into a branch of Santander. It was a Thursday, and I was banking a cheque. I was the fourth customer that the bank teller had seen that week. It was utterly dismal, and that was in the centre of Kidderminster. The branch was closed the following week. There are issues for banks—whether they should necessarily be opening branches that could get one or two customers coming in a week. There is a balance to be struck. If a branch is not viable, should the bank keep it open?

We must look at the other opportunities. The last Conservative Government recognised that and were committed to retaining vital banking services. That is why we provided a system of free and convenient access to banks through the post office branch network, why we introduced protections for access to cash and why we enabled the development of banking hubs through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.

I am glad that the Government have continued our positive trajectory, especially through their commitment to 350 new banking hubs by 2030, but I also welcome the independent access to banking services review chaired by Richard Lloyd. We are interested to see its outcomes and recommendations, but would be grateful if the Minister gave us a clue as to when it will report. Decisive Government action could ensure support for underserved communities in good time and mitigate the impact of bank branch closures.

This and previous debates on this subject have shown just how much Members support bank branches, especially in rural areas. Members have emphasised how many of their constituents and local businesses still rely on those services, which is especially true in rural areas such as South Devon. It is vital that the Government step up to support communities who lack adequate banking services provision.

The publication of the access to banking services review will help to identify the next steps, but many people will be frustrated that the Government are undertaking another review and not taking action. As the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said, people are “impatient for change”. When it comes to this issue, our constituents do not want to wait much longer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Every year, the UK loses £33.4 billion in tax revenue, as multinational corporations and the super-rich choose tax havens over tax payments. However, the UN tax convention has the potential to solve this problem, so will the Minister show leadership, not ambivalence, and commit to securing an ambitious UN tax convention in this Parliament?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am always happy to show leadership, and this Government—and, I may say, previous Governments—have worked hard with international partners, both in the OECD and the UN, to do all we can to reduce tax avoidance and evasion by multinational companies. We continue to work with our partners in the UK and abroad to clamp down on tax dodging.

Transport in the South-East

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

It is almost as though the hon. Gentleman has read my speech in advance. I will go on to a lot of the things he has just raised. If it is bad today in my constituency, it is hard to imagine how much worse it is on a sunny day, when tourists for the Witterings queue for miles to reach our lovely sandy beach or Goodwood hosts an event that attracts visitors in their thousands.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My hon. Friend talks about coastal roads. The A379, a glorious coastal road in my constituency, had already been damaged by storms in January, but last night huge chunks of it were literally washed into the sea. It is absolutely devastating, and I was shocked to be told by officials at the Department for Transport this morning that there is no national emergency fund for repairs to roads damaged by storms. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we see more intense and frequent storms caused by climate change, the Government need to ensure that they have funding ready to support communities like those around Torcross in South Devon that have been devastated by this damage?

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend has shown me the photos of what has happened in her constituency, and I share her distress that a main road—an A road—has literally fallen into the sea. Our constituencies share the fact that we are low-lying coastal plains at the forefront of climate change. As we see more storm events, we are seeing the damage in our communities.

That brings me on to paying particular tribute to my residents living on the Manhood peninsula, who get completely trapped in the summer months because of congestion on the roads and are unable to get out of the area. Today, they are trapped because all the roads in and out of the Manhood are completely flooded. Georgia, a constituent of mine, left her job as a nurse because her commute was taking two hours, with one hour spent travelling just the handful of miles from Emsworth to Tangmere. Chris’s son has school transport, and has to leave an hour before school starts due to the traffic on the A259 on to the A27; again, he is only travelling a small number of miles.

Melanie is planning on packing up her successful mental health business because the gridlock is, perhaps ironically, negatively affecting her mental health. Shaun owns a funeral company, and he told me of the time he had to get out of the hearse to physically clear the traffic to get to the local crematorium on time. Daniel owns a home carers company, and he regularly reports that staff get stuck on the A27, which means that the people they care for in the community miss medicine times and hospital appointments, and the backlog means that people get seen later and later in the day.

I am in no doubt that the congestion on the A27 is strangling the city and putting off investment from businesses. It is stopping people shopping in the city or business parks and is impacting people’s daily lives. The A27 Chichester improvement scheme has a long history dating back to the 2000 south coast multi-modal study. Following several iterations, the scheme was included in the 2013 “Investing in Britain’s Future” White Paper and the 2014 road investment strategy. The scheme went to consultation in 2016, when 93% of respondents to a National Highways survey said that congestion was a problem on the A27.

However, in 2017 the Secretary of State removed the funding for any improvements along the Chichester stretch. There remains significant anger and frustration among residents that they were never given the opportunity to vote on a preferred model of road improvements, especially as the Chichester district has seen more than its fair share of house building over the past decade. If the Government expect areas such as ours to continue to sustain such an increased level of development, residents need to see the investment in infrastructure too. Instead, it seems that their local services, be it GPs, schools, roads or buses, are expected to manage the additional capacity with no extra resource.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I very much encourage people in my hon. Friend’s constituency to fill in her survey. The Pride in Place money, which we are allocating across some of the most deprived parts of the country, will make a huge difference in regenerating areas left behind by the previous Government. I encourage everyone in all our communities to get involved, and to shape those plans, because those plans can only be improved by direct contact with the people who stand to benefit from them most.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Link has doubled down on its decision not to grant Totnes a banking hub, despite the Prime Minister telling Members at Prime Minister’s questions that every community that wants one should have one. Will the Chancellor agree to review the criteria for banking hubs, so that people have access to face-to-face banking services, not just access to cash, when the last bank turns its back on its customers and leaves town?

[Lucy Rigby]

The Government of course recognise the importance of in-person banking services and access to cash, as the hon. Member and I have discussed. As she knows, in-person services are provided through traditional bank branches, banking hubs, post offices and other means, and I will continue to monitor the situation. As she knows, I have listened very carefully to her concerns, and I am happy to do so again.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I will focus on Liberal Democrat new clause 9, which would require an assessment of the cumulative impact of the proposals on the hospitality industry.

One must bear in mind that, after a medley of challenges, our hospitality industry fears the future—it is in crisis mode—so it is not prepared to invest or take a chance by improving its offer, and it is hunkering down and hoping for the best. I reflect on the international pandemic, which had a massive impact; Torbay’s tourism and hospitality industry has still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. The outrageous second invasion of Ukraine almost four years ago caused a shock in our energy costs. I am afraid that there have also been self-inflicted wounds, such as the national insurance hike and the ensuing employment challenges.

David from Rock Garden in Torquay told me that his utility bill has risen to £3,000 a month, which dwarfs his rental costs. Ofgem is asleep at the wheel; it must back local businesses and drive the changes that we need. Our hospitality industry is horrified by the proposals for business rates. The Government must apply the full 20% rate of relief to ensure that there are protections. I am afraid to say that many people in the hospitality industry scoff at proposals that simply deregulate around the edges, because if they do not have paying customers in their premises, they are set up to fail.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Steve Darling]

I will happily give way to my Devon colleague.

[Caroline Voaden]

As his constituency neighbours mine, my hon. Friend may be aware that three much-loved venues—Wild Artichokes, the Old Warehouse and the Old Bakery—closed in the town of Kingsbridge last week. The owner of one of those venues told us that part of the problem was the cumulation of challenges faced by the hospitality industry—not just the lack of people coming through the door and spending money because of the cost of living crisis, as my hon. Friend just said, but the rises in business rates and employer national insurance contributions, which have made it impossible for businesses to continue. Does he agree that it is a tragedy that such venues are closing every day, and that something must change before the hospitality industry is devastated?

[Steve Darling]

My hon. Friend is spot on. We need the Government to wake up, smell the coffee and recognise the challenges that our hospitality industry faces.

Some national chains, such as Wetherspoons, use their buying power to drive down the cost of a pint—many customers reflect on prices when they cross the threshold of a venue. The reality for lots of independents—because it is independents that are really important—is that £6 a pint is the minimum they can achieve with all the costs that are involved. When we compare that with the cost in a supermarket, it is really scary. The Minister rightly highlighted the difference we see today, with more than 70% of the alcohol consumed having been purchased at a supermarket. I feel we need to have a national debate about whether we have got the balance right and how we can ensure that we are driving greater footfall towards our hospitality industry.

Clause 1

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

In conclusion, this new clause is about fairness, realism and respect. It recognises Northern Ireland’s disproportionate contribution to the UK, which I am very proud of. It gives the Government the evidence they need to get this right. Supporting it means supporting farmers, protecting rural communities and safeguarding the UK’s food supply. I also want to raise something that is of psychological value. We are having this debate tonight, but not one of us has said anything about the psychological impact and the body blow that this has caused to farming communities across the UK. They felt genuinely unneeded. They felt undervalued. In fact, they felt a burden. They felt that this tax raid was being done to them, and I am not sure what they ever did to deserve it. That is why I will continue to oppose the family farm tax in its entirety.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Following the initial decision to introduce new APR and BPR rates, farmers across the country rallied their tractors outside this place to get their voices heard. Other family-owned businesses have gone through the same agony over the last 14 months, but without the tractors and with perhaps less of a voice, fearing for the future of businesses that have been built up over generations—businesses that form the bedrock of local communities and economies, employing local people and supporting local suppliers. As one constituent business owner told me, even with the recent lifting of the threshold, the reforms to BPR could still lead to family businesses such as his having to break up their underlying assets just to survive. The resulting loss to the Treasury in economic activity will far outweigh the amount of tax raised.

This attack on family-run businesses is particularly damaging in a constituency such as South Devon, where the family-run hotels and holiday parks are the foundation stones of the local economy. Passed down from generation to generation, they are more than just businesses. They are woven into the fabric of our communities. The director of one popular holiday park has been left questioning the long-term viability of their business due to the inheritance tax that will be due. This family-run business was founded over 65 years ago and employs over 180 staff in the summer season, which is a large number in a constituency such as mine that has few large employers. It uses an abundance of local suppliers and makes a significant contribution to the local economy. But I am told that when the 81-year-old majority shareholder passes away, it is likely that the family will have to sell up completely, after at least five generations of ownership, to pay an inheritance tax liability of approximately £2.5 million. The business cannot just chop off a section of the holiday camp, sell it to pay the tax and be left with a viable business—it just does not work like that. That illustrates perfectly how this tax is not merely a financial burden; it threatens the very survival of these businesses, and the ripples will spread out across the pond with scores of people losing their jobs, which will have knock-on effects on the local economy, the community and the mental health of all those people left high and dry.

Examples such as that are why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I support amendment 42, which would maintain 100% business relief where the property has been owned by the transferor for at least 10 years as part of a business that is actively operated by the transferor or a member of their family. That is the least that this Government could do given the plethora of financial challenges these family-run businesses already face. Whatever loophole the Government were looking to close with this business property relief, they have gone way beyond that, and the implications will be an economic and personal tragedy for so many.

I could not speak today without again mentioning our family farms. I am pleased that the Government have finally listened and made the adjustment to the threshold, which will end the agony for many farmers. However, I am concerned that in areas where land prices are particularly high, such as the South Hams, the £2.5 million threshold will still be too low. There are also a significant number of farms owned by a single person rather than a couple, meaning they will not benefit from the spousal allowance. When APR was originally introduced, I surveyed all the farmers in the South Devon constituency, of which there are many hundreds: 85% of them said that they would be affected. Of those who responded, 44% said that they would have a bill of at least £300,000. The average bill was going to be £637,000 across my constituency, and the highest inheritance tax expected by one of my farms is £3 million.

I therefore support amendment 48, which would make the resulting inheritance tax liability chargeable only if agricultural land is sold or ceases to be used for farming within 10 years of the relevant transfer. I urge the Government to support new clause 7 to ensure the relief allowance is uprated annually according to the change in the value of agricultural land. I also urge the Government, as many of my colleagues have, to consider extending the spousal allowance to siblings who co-own a farm so that they too can benefit from this relief. Why should one family be penalised because a brother and sister own a farm compared with another family where it is a husband and wife? It is incredibly old fashioned to design a policy that benefits people who are married but not people who co-own within the same family.

I hope the Government will now provide meaningful support for farmers, who have been through so much over the last 14 months, starting with a £1 billion increase in the farming budget as promised by the Liberal Democrats if we were sitting on the Government Benches. If we undermine British farming, we undermine our ability to feed the nation and, in turn, compete in an increasingly uncertain world. Our farmers have been through an agonising 14 months. They should never have been subjected to this fear and stress. It is a disgrace that the Government took more seriously a prospective revolt from their own Back Benchers than the committed, desperate and passionate campaigning of farmers, countryside organisations and rural communities right across the country for the last 14 months. This policy still retains huge unfairness, as colleagues have explained so clearly, and I urge the Government to pause and think again while a proper impact assessment of even the new APR is carried out.

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

I stand to speak in favour of various Lib Dem amendments and in particular new clause 7. Farmers in this country continue to be hammered, as they were under the previous Government, by the current one. From poor funding of rural public services to botched trade deals that undercut British farmers, rural communities have been left behind, despite the industry being vital to delivering our food supply and a key pillar in our fight against climate change. Food is not some luxury or niche commodity but an essential, and an important part of our heritage and culture. In an increasingly volatile world, it is important that we recognise the value of domestic production.

Many speakers this evening have discussed problems with the Labour Government’s changes to agricultural and business property tax relief, and it is welcome that the Government have to some extent listened to that. However, in my constituency, the key thing I hear when speaking with farmers is that the proposed changes, in their original form, were the final straw for them on top of so many other challenges and headwinds. That is why the reaction has been so strong. They face the uncertainty and impact of Brexit; trade deals based on proving the so-called benefits of Brexit, no matter the impact on our farmers; constantly changing Government incentive and payment regimes; the impact of recent worldwide inflation on fertiliser prices and equipment costs; labour shortages, also partly as a result of Brexit; and the dominance of large supermarkets seeking ever lower prices.

Our farmers also face rural crime, which, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) rightly stated, has a significant impact on their mental health and wellbeing. Even with Thames Valley police’s best efforts, farms’ remoteness makes them easy targets for theft or hare coursing. Flooding has also affected many farms across my constituency, such as George Gale’s Manor farm in Appleford or Paul Cauldwell’s Dropshort farm in Drayton. Increased rainfall and a lack of river maintenance are both contributing factors to wider flooding incidents, plus run-off from new developments.

The National Farmers’ Union hustings were by far the toughest of the general election campaign, but I have also been warmly welcomed by farmers who have been very patient and generous in explaining their trade to someone who could not have less of an agricultural background. They include Matt Lane of Grange farm, David Christensen of Lockinge estate and Alan and Richard Binnings, who put so much work into Truckfest, which, as well as being an amazing concert experience on their land, raises tens of thousands of pounds for local charities each year.

I want to talk in particular about Ben Smith from Manor Road farm near Wantage. When I met him last winter to hear his challenges, he explained that he is a third-generation arable farmer. At that time, his mother was 90 years of age. She owns the farm. Ben’s big concern was that when she dies, he and his family will be significantly hit by the inheritance tax, with revenues from their arable farming barely able to cover the liabilities. At that time, his mother was saying that she would rather die than leave Ben and his sister to deal with the situation later. Ben wants his son and daughter to have the farm, but he will be in a financial mess. He might need to lose six or seven staff, some of whom have worked for him for between 10 and 45 years. Inheritance tax is a big worry to him, but he has also been hit by other increases in tax and national insurance.

All the farmers I have met have been welcoming, tolerant of my agricultural ignorance, forgiving of my vegetarianism, patient in educating me about their work and profoundly passionate about what they do. I have been surprised to find parallels between my experience of working in railways before coming to this place and farming. Both are subject to the stop-and-start whims of Government policy and the decisions of people who have little knowledge or experience of the sectors concerned and often do not take the time to listen and learn.

In contrast, the Liberal Democrats are proud of our advocacy for farmers and are calling for the farming budget to be raised by £1 billion, for a renegotiation of trade agreements to protect British farmers in line with our objectives for health, environmental and animal welfare standards, and for strengthening of the Groceries Code Adjudicator to ensure that farmers can keep farming in fair circumstances.

It is welcome that the Government have started to listen, but we must always remember that we need food, we need countryside and our farmers do so much to look after both. They deserve our support.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I have been asked that question already by an Opposition Member, but I am happy to give the right hon. Lady a similar answer. I can say to those families that we listened carefully to the representations that were made about the level of the threshold as it was originally set at the Budget in 2024, and we have now come forward with a change to increase the threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, which, coupled with the changes announced at the Budget in 2025, will now be transferable between spouses, allowing those families to pass on up to £5 million tax free.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. For 14 months, I have stood here alongside my colleagues and asked various Ministers to reconsider this policy. For 14 months, farming organisations up and down the country have campaigned relentlessly against the policy. Why did it take the Government so long to listen to them? Would it not be nice if someone was able to stand at the Dispatch Box and simply say, “We’re sorry—we got this wrong. We commit now to consult with farming and rural communities on any further changes to tax reliefs affecting them”?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We have come forward with a change to this policy after listening to farmers and farming communities and to the representations that have been made. We think that this is the right change. We will have the chance to debate it again when we consider the Finance (No. 2) Bill in Committee of the whole House next week, when the amendment that has been tabled will be voted on. In the end, Opposition Members who wish for the Government not to go ahead with this change at all should come forward with ideas for how they would raise £300 million from those who have the very largest estates in this country. We think it is right to raise revenue from those with the very broadest shoulders, and that is what this change will allow us to do.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. What businesses, including farms, need to succeed is lower taxes and not to be spending most of their time worrying about how they will cover the impact of future taxation. They need to be planning for the future of their businesses and investing in them.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

The hon. Member will be very familiar with my constituency, as he is my constituency neighbour. Does he agree that the Minister might have got his figures wrong? I surveyed all the farms in South Devon—there are nearly 500 small farms—and 44% of respondents said that they would be hit with an inheritance tax bill of over £300,000 when these measures come in. Does he agree that the Government simply do not understand the value of a farm, particularly in a part of the country like ours?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I would not naturally defer to the results of a Lib Dem survey over the work of His Majesty’s Treasury. However, I get the gist of what the hon. Lady is saying—perhaps a bar chart with a slightly dodgy scale would be a good way of putting the point.

The Chancellor says that those who are in receipt solely of the state pension should not worry about being dragged slightly into taxation, because that will be dealt with, but we do not know what that actually means. We do not know what the plan is, nor the cost. Perhaps in the wind-ups the Minister can tell us exactly what is envisaged for the very large number of pensioners who, under the Bill, will be dragged into paying tax on their state pension for the first time. What a mess! The Government are working against the instincts of those who are doing the right thing to save for their future.

The same is the case in respect of investment. The 2% increase in tax on dividends—a £1.2 billion tax grab—will simply have the effect of disincentivising investments in equities. That will mean less capital being invested in businesses, which is what drives up productivity. Part of the story of low productivity in our country is the fact that private investment has been too low for too long. This tax increase will weigh in the opposite direction. The Minister spoke about the importance of increasing investment in plant and machinery; the reality is that the Bill cuts the writing-down allowances, unless they relate to new plant and machinery, which will weigh against that very objective.

This is an unfair Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) raised the issue of the farm tax, and he was absolutely right to do so. Farms up and down this country are now worried about the future. Farms in my constituency, which have sometimes been in the family for decades or generations—in some cases even for centuries—are now having to stare down the barrel of a very uncertain future. What an irony and what a tragedy that, during the run-up to the general election, the then shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), looked the president of the National Farmers Union in the eye, and said that, when it came to inheritance tax, farmers had nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. How wrong they were. As Tom Bradshaw said, this whole tax increase is

“morally wrong and economically flawed”,

and he is right.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for bringing us this very important debate; it is much appreciated.

The overall logic of more alcohol resulting in more tax makes sense, and the taxation of wine needs to be stable, fair and workable. That principle has to work in practice, and we are completely failing on that in the current system. We really need to fix that as soon as possible.

To recap, before August 2023, in line with EU regulations, wine duty was predominantly charged according to volume, rather than how much alcohol the product contained. In August 2023, through the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023, a new duty system was introduced that required duty to be paid on all products according to strength. On 31 January 2025, wines between 11.5% ABV and 14.5% ABV were taxed as if their strength were 12.5%, but that measure was withdrawn on 1 February 2025. Therefore, 85% of all wine sold in the UK is subject to the same rate of duty.

Under the new system, that has been replaced by 30 different rates based on ABV at 0.1% increments. That is extraordinary. It would make sense if we were talking about vodka, which is distilled, or beer, which is brewed, as the producer is able to perfectly and precisely determine how much alcohol is in those products. It makes absolutely no sense for an agricultural product like wine; a bottle of wine may have more or less alcohol in it from one season to the next. Dealing with the microscopic increments puts domestic and foreign producers and retailers in this country in real trouble, because every single one of those bottles needs to be measured and calibrated, and priced and taxed accordingly. The administrative burden of that is absolutely horrendous.

I hear that from Oli Gauntlett, the head of Eynsham Cellars and a loyal constituent, and from the Oxford Wine Company, which is a wonderful wine company that serves Oxfordshire. It has had enormous admin trouble dealing with this issue. I also hear it from Majestic Wine, which has a shop in Witney. The single best reason to change this is, as so many people have said already, that it is not working: we have £300 million less excise duty as a result. I cannot think of a better argument to tickle the Treasury into a sensible decision.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this policy directly hits the small independent wine importers, such as The Wine Loft in Brixham? It sells many different kinds of wine, but it does not have the power of Sainsbury’s or Majestic. It does not have a whole department to manage it and bring in large quantities of the same wine.

[Charlie Maynard]

I agree 100%. That is a great illustration of just how painful and unnecessary it is. This is not benefiting anyone, not even His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The Budget is very soon and, bluntly—I do not want to stick the knife too much into my Conservative colleagues—I think the previous Government’s tax reforms were, overall, quite sensible in levying more tax on higher amounts of alcohol, but that is obviously mad when it comes to wine. I am an equal-opportunities knife sticker, so why did Labour follow a mad Tory policy? It is a bit like, why are they following a mad hard Brexit? Pull out, blame the Tories and then change the policy back to something sensible. They could raise more tax and put UK growers and UK retailers back on their feet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I have already answered the question about the CenTax proposals, but it is clear from its analysis that the number of estates that would pay more inheritance tax would be more than double the number contained in the proposals that the Government have put on the table. I understand that changes in inheritance tax are always difficult, but last year the Government had to make the decision to raise more revenue to ensure that we could fund our public services adequately, and this change raises half a billion pounds in a fair way.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

2. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of access to banking services in rural areas.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

The Government understand the importance of in-person banking to communities, and we are working closely with industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the United Kingdom. More than 240 hubs have been announced so far, and more than 180 are already open. I know that that includes two in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I look forward to our upcoming meeting to discuss her constituents’ banking needs.

[Caroline Voaden]

When Labour was in opposition, its shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), welcomed measures to protect access to cash, but was concerned about the fact that they did

“nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 71.]

Such services go beyond a banking hub, but they are now vanishing. While the Financial Conduct Authority is responsible for access to cash, it appears that there is no Government body overseeing access to face-to-face banking services. Does the Minister agree that new regulation is needed to support residents and businesses in rural areas, especially as banks will prevent customers from cashing cheques in post offices from January?

[Lucy Rigby]

We recognise the important role that post offices, in particular, play in providing essential banking services as well as banking hubs. Decisions about which services are available at post offices—such as cheque deposits—are made by banks as part of their commercial arrangements. I should emphasise that customers continue to have other options for paying in cheques, which I know is an issue for the hon. Member; in the case of Lloyds, it can be done via Freepost. As I have said, I look forward to discussing these issues further with the hon. Member during our meeting.