Banking Services: Accessibility

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George]

I strongly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. I will come to questions to the Minister in a moment; I believe that the Government need to look at the robustness and sustainability of those services. What has been put in the place of banks is rather flimsy in the longer term, and that represents a risk to the future of financial services, which are essential, particularly for the most vulnerable and digitally excluded in our society.

It is worth reflecting that Members of Parliament using digital technologies perhaps do not entirely comprehend how difficult that is for some people. I am not one of the most IT-savvy people on the planet by any means, so I sympathise with those people to a certain extent. Even when someone gets on top of the electronic capacity required to use electronic services, the services often still contain degrees of linguistic ambiguity that leave even the most intelligent and educated among us rather confused. Unless someone can speak to a human being, that ambiguity remains and the inaccessibility of those services continues as well. It is not just the electronics, but the fact that someone cannot ask anyone who has designed the system what on earth they mean by the options available.

I am surprised that the review of access to financial services has been reduced to an assessment of merely cash. That is what the regulations seem to say. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that the Government need to look at this again, and I hope they will. The framework designed to protect communities from losing central banking services is far too narrowly focused. Current legislation and regulatory oversight look almost exclusively at access to cash, but needs to look at access to banking, banking advice, account advice and other services. Even Link’s formal assessments openly state that it does not consider access to more complex banking needs. It allows banks to close branches even when communities remain deeply dependent on face-to-face support, as we found in the case of Penzance, which I mentioned earlier.

I ask the Minister to extend the regulatory framework, including the 2023 Act, which my hon. and gallant Friend has referred to already, so that it protects access to banking and not just cash; so that it strengthens and widens the FCA’s role to ensure that local impact, equality analysis and access to banking services more widely are mandatory considerations before closures are permitted to go ahead; so that it requires realistic travel assessments for rural and island communities; so that it improves standards and the roll-out of service standards for banking hubs; and so that it considers proportionate service obligations on banks, not least because these banks are, after all, too big to fail. In 2008, Lloyds was bailed out to the tune of more than £20 billion of taxpayers’ money.

The bank says in its branding that it is “By Your Side”—but apparently only until it finds that to be unsuitable: an empty branding slogan, one is bound to observe. I hope the Minister looks at this issue. It is a matter not of consumer choice, but consumer displacement. Around 14% of adults in financially vulnerable communities in the UK—that is 2.8 million people—live in rural areas, and the rural nature and travel involved need to be considered, too.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. He makes a really pertinent point about the issue of transport. One of the most frustrating elements for me, apart from the initial announcement of a closure of a bank on my high street or in the villages that I represent, often occurs when they tell people the location of their nearest alternative branch. I do not know whether the people running the banks understand the local transport system, but it can often take three and a half hours on public transport to even get to those branches. Does the hon. Member agree that it would be helpful if, when banks made these decisions, they consulted the public transport available to those losing their branch?

[Andrew George]

The hon. Member makes a pertinent and relevant point. That is why these matters need to be taken into account; it cannot be purely about access to cash, which is all that Link currently needs to consider. As long as there is an ATM in some corner within a mile or two of someone’s community, that is deemed to be sufficient to justify any bank closing anywhere. However, it is not sufficient.

Now that the Penzance branch has closed, of the 39 Lloyds branches in Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly, only two are left in Cornwall. People on the Isles of Scilly have to travel by ferry, paying £220 for a return ticket to the mainland—as well as for an overnight stay and a two-hour bus ride to Truro and back—to get access to face-to-face banking. That is the reality my constituents face to get access to the services.

Why are face-to-face transactions important? They are important for identity verification, resolution of fraud or scams, handling significant disputes or matters of banking interpretation, complex account queries, CHAPS and international payments, business cash deposits, and change-giving services. They are also important when there are bereavement or probate matters, as well as for community organisations, when counter-signatories are required, and for sports clubs and voluntary organisations. Those things are absolutely essential to the life of such organisations.

I am conscious of time; although I could say a great deal more on this important issue, I want to make sure that other hon. Members have an opportunity. Since 2015, around 6,700 branches—68% of the whole banking network—have closed. That is significant, and the impact on our communities has been fundamental and wide-ranging. On the day in January this year that Lloyds decided to close its Penzance branch, the bank had been in the most iconic building in the centre of our town, Market House, for literally 100 years. It was still serving 33,000 customers. Twenty-nine per cent of those local customers used the branch exclusively, and more than 1,000 regular weekly users—around one in 20 of the town’s residents—relied on it. The local population is older than the average and, as I mentioned, there was no consultation on the closure. Banks are able simply to ignore those facts.

Another pattern is that the banks will refer to the significant increase in people using apps, online banking, telephone banking and other alternatives to the face-to-face banking available on the high street. Often, that increase is a result of enforcement by the banks themselves; they fail to take into account that it results from their policy of making it difficult for people to use face-to-face services. Indeed, when customers go through the front door of branches that the banks are trying to close down, they are often met by someone who triages them out of the door again, to go and use an app or online service that they do not want to use. The banks are creating the circumstances in which they can justify closing branches.

I hope that the Minister will consider strengthening the regulations, recognising the limitations that exist, and challenging the banks on the services they are providing, as well as the dismissive way in which they ignore the most vulnerable in society—the people who will be suffering the most. In towns such as Penzance, the impact on the viability of the town is significant. When high street banks have closed in other towns, footfall—the lifeblood of commerce in the centre of a market town—has been significantly depleted as a result. That is certainly one of the great fears in Penzance if the other bank branches fall like a house of cards after the closure of Lloyds. We are trying to stop that by demanding that the other banks demonstrate their loyalty to the town. One by one, we are getting them to commit their loyalty, but only for a limited period, up to 2030; we need to go way beyond that.

I hope that my comments have helped to set the debate up for others to contribute, and I hope that the Minister is listening.

Financial Services Reform

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

That is absolutely right. We were at Lloyds Banking Group yesterday in Leeds, and Lloyds employs thousands of people in Leeds and the wider region. There are some great opportunities in not only the establishment firms, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) said, some of these new firms outside of London that are growing and providing innovative products. I was recently in Scotland talking to a group of fintechs about the support they are getting to work closely with some of the banks in Scotland to drive further investment into fintechs. That collaboration between the more established players and new players is positive to see.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I commend the Minister for her statement. Listening to my neighbour on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), as charismatic as he is, he did not convince me that 11% inflation, a £200 increase in my mortgage payments and a revolving door of Prime Ministers and Chancellors is a record to be particularly proud of.

My question is about the 29 million people in this country who have deposits in low-yielding current accounts, while people who invested in the stock exchange over the last 10 years saw yields of 9%. How do we convince and educate those customers to give them the confidence to be able to reveal much better outcomes from their investments?

[Emma Reynolds]

That is similar to what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) asked. There has been lots of different research, but AJ Bell recently found that if people had put £100 a year into ISAs for the past 25 years, they would be better off if they invested in a stocks and shares ISA than a cash ISA, so it is perhaps about showing people that sort of evidence. Obviously, the stock market ebbs and flows and can fluctuate, but if people are saving for the longer term, they should certainly consider investing. The industry-led campaign will look at how we can advertise the benefits. Of course, there still will be risk warnings, but we need to ensure that we get the balance right between telling people that there are risks and telling them that there are great benefits of investing, too.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Chris Bloore Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.

I represent Dumfries and Galloway, which is the land of milk and slurry. With due deference to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his super-valuable land, we have some of the most productive grassland in the whole country. The point that the farmers there make to me all the time—they do not, by the way, have the large estates, but are small and often tenant farmers—is that Treasury Ministers, like accountants, often know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. That is the situation.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the reliefs. They are not loopholes; they were specifically put in place to allow multigenerational farming to continue. One of my farmers, Robert, who farms near Moniaive, said:

“APR and BPR are not, as has been suggested, ‘loopholes’ but targeted and necessary reliefs designed to allow multi-generational farming businesses to contribute towards food production and economic growth.”

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Labour Members have made several attempts to project possible tweaks to the legislation, with feedback from our members. On that point about loopholes, however, I do not think that anyone is saying that family farms have tried to abuse loopholes; it is the big billion-dollar corporations and land banks that have started to exploit them—[Interruption.]

[John Cooper]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but as he can hear from Opposition Members it has repeatedly been called a loophole. I have been told in the main Chamber that I am scaremongering, which is not right either. That is nonsense—the fear out there is real. Listen to the noise outside. The people outside are not multimillionaires; they are not shroud waving for the sake of it and are not exploiting a loophole. This is a bit like red diesel—again, I suspect, the Minister does not even know what that is. Red diesel is priced cheaply, and that has a direct link with, and effect on, the price of food that we pay in our shops. The whole system is designed, first and foremost, to ensure food security and to deliver quality food at low prices.

We have heard about tweaks and so forth, but it is not for me to suggest tweaks. The Government are in power with a huge majority; they must think again and it is not, as I say, for me to sit down to write out specifics for them. They have the ability not to make a great screeching U-turn, but to make the tweaks that can protect this most important and vital industry. Will the Minister please take away the message he has heard today—including the change of tone from those on the Benches behind him—that this is a real and serious problem? Changes can be made. It is not too late.