Banking Services: Accessibility

David Chadwick Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) for securing this vital debate. He represents a similar constituency to my own, with the additional challenge of some extra islands, and I was struck by some of the similarities in our experiences—particularly the dismissive attitude of Lloyds, which was mentioned by several Members.

My hon. Friend spoke about the reliance on community bankers, which banks have provided as an alternative, but, similarly to him, I have found in my constituency that the locations in which they are offering those services are not up to scratch, and local residents do not feel comfortable with them. My hon. Friend also said that the FCA criteria need to be widened, a call that I certainly agree with.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) spoke of the impact of closures on small towns and local economies. There is only one bank left in Tewkesbury; I am sure that is causing a huge inconvenience for his residents. Likewise, I agree with his call for the number of hubs to be increased. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) spoke of Lloyds’ “computer says no” approach, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) spoke about the community campaigns in her constituency and the impact of Santander’s closures.

Across my constituency of Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, we are seeing a steady and deeply worrying erosion of access to basic banking services. The issue here is whether people can withdraw their own money, whether small businesses can function, and whether elderly residents can manage their day-to-day lives. In rural Wales, access to cash and in-person banking is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

Take Hay-on-Wye, an internationally renowned tourist destination and home to the Hay festival, with a thriving high street built on independent businesses. It is heavily cash dependent, particularly during the tourist season, yet it has no bank, and its only 24-hour ATM is routinely out of action, often for weeks at a time. What message does that send—a town that welcomes the world yet cannot guarantee access to cash for its own residents or its many visitors? That is not just inconvenient; it is economically damaging.

In Presteigne, the situation is even more stark: the town has lost its bank branch entirely. The nearest alternative—this speaks to the point about long bus journeys—is now two hours and 40 minutes away by bus. This is a town with a large elderly population—people who are far less likely to bank online and far more reliant on face-to-face services. Those people are effectively being told that accessing their own money now requires a full day’s travel. That simply cannot be right.

In Brecon and Llandrindod Wells—the largest towns in Brecknockshire and Radnorshire respectively—each town is now down to its last remaining bank. Those towns are key hubs for their counties, serving not just local residents but the wider Brecon Beacons and Radnorshire area, with a significant tourism and agricultural economy. Yet, under the current rules, those towns must wait until the final bank closes before they can be considered for a banking hub. That forces us into a perverse situation in which communities have to lose everything before they qualify for any support. Why are we waiting for failure when we can clearly see it coming?

In Pontardawe, residents have already been left without a bank. They are now forced to travel to Neath—a round trip by bus that can often take more than two hours. Again, that disproportionately affects older residents, those without cars and those on lower incomes. Financial access is becoming a postcode lottery.

The fundamental problem is that the criteria for banking hubs are deeply flawed. They simply do not reflect how rural communities actually work. The current model looks at whether there are 7,000 people within 1 km of a high street, but rural Wales does not work like that, and nor do many areas across the United Kingdom. Towns like Brecon, Hay, Llandrindod and Presteigne act as hubs for vast surrounding areas—villages and rural communities many miles beyond that arbitrary radius. The system therefore systematically underestimates need, and communities lose out as a result.

Banking hubs are about more than convenience; they are also about inclusion. We still have significantly high levels of digital exclusion, particularly among older residents and in rural areas, where many struggle to get a mobile signal at home. Many people simply cannot manage their finances entirely online, and they should not be forced to. Banks should have a duty of care to their customers. After all, their profits are built on the money that customers entrust to them.

We also need to ensure reliable access to cashpoints. An ATM that is frequently out of service is no access at all. Let us be clear: this situation is not inevitable. The major banks are making significant profits. They are benefiting from higher interest rates and, in many cases, generous tax arrangements. Yet at the same time, they are withdrawing services from the very communities that helped them to build those profits.

In Powys, for example, a county that covers nearly a third of the land mass of Wales, there are no remaining Lloyds branches at all. That is an extraordinary withdrawal of service. Yet Lloyds made a £6.7 billion profit last year, which was up 12%. Its CEO, Charlie Nunn, received a total pay package of £7.4 million for 2025, and he is reportedly set up for a potential maximum payout of £17.7 million under a new performance-related pay policy proposed for 2026. There we have it: he will get a £10 million pay rise for closing bank branches across the country. Communities are being abandoned unnecessarily while banking profits are being prioritised.

[Cameron Thomas]

I hope my hon. Friend does not mind if I join in on his last point, which adds to the comments made by our hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) about the branding that Lloyds uses to portray itself as “By Your Side”, as though it is a member of the community. It uses the powerful image of the black stallion and powerful music, the name of which evades me. The reality is that it is a multi-billion-pound juggernaut and that black stallion has well and truly bolted from 94 of our communities, ridden by a CEO taking home £17 million.

[David Chadwick]

My hon. Friend is quite right. Many of my constituents certainly would not say that Lloyds is by their side. That is why it comes down to the Government. They have to show that they are on the side of our constituents, not just of the big banks.

Ultimately, this is a question of political choice. The Government can choose to stand up for rural communities and those reliant on in-person banking—which is all of us—or they can continue to allow this managed decline. Right now, the choices being made are the wrong ones. Labour has chosen to keep the tax breaks handed to the big banks by the previous Conservative Government and hinge its economic strategy on appeasing those same banks. At the same time, it is asking the small, often family-run businesses on our high streets to shoulder more of the burden to raise revenue. While big banks are being rewarded, rural communities are being left behind and local businesses are being squeezed.

That is not fair, balanced or sustainable. We need a reform of banking hub criteria to reflect rural geography, a proactive provision of hubs before the last bank closes, guaranteed access to free-to-use ATMs, and stronger obligations on banks to maintain services in underserved areas. Without intervention, the current trajectory is clear: more closures, further exclusion and more communities left behind.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on not only securing the debate but opening it so clearly. He laid out the particular issue in Penzance, but in doing so highlighted common concerns about bank closures. He raised some interesting questions in his excellent speech. I am sure the Minister will address them, but I will highlight a couple that I thought particularly interesting. The first was about the manner in which the closure was done—there was no consultation. He also talked about access to banking, not just to cash. The Minister will be aware that the Labour party had thoughts on that prior to the election; I do not want to prejudge the consultation, but I would be interested in her observations about that.

The hon. Member for St Ives has been joined by several other Members. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) made an important point, among many, about the communal role that banks have played historically, and the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) mentioned the impact on town centres. Those two points highlight how central bank branches were to our country’s culture. The hon. Member for St Ives also talked about the buildings that once housed the recently closed banks. The withdrawal of bank branches not only strikes at the way financial services operate in this country, but says a lot about the type of country we are. I will come on to that point later.

In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised the issue of the criteria used in the selection of banking hubs. I would be interested to know whether the Minister is considering that. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) talked about face-to-face banking, which goes to the nub of the matter: future trends in banking, an issue that I will raise in my own comments. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), made a wide-ranging speech and talked about how mobile banking must be dependable to be successful, as well as the availability of mobile networks.

I had an exceptionally brief ministerial career, part of which included introducing to the House of Commons the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which contained the provisions that provided for banking hubs. It might be helpful to share some of my own thinking, or the thinking of the Conservative Government at the time. Some comments have been made about the impact of closures. I share people’s concerns about that issue, but the Government of the day—the Labour Government, today—must take a view on whether they will work with trends in how financial services operate in this country. They must decide either to seek to mitigate the social consequences, which is the rightful role of Government, or to stand steadfast against such changes. Patently, the decision made by the then Conservative Government, which has been supported by this Labour Government, was to work with the grain of how financial services are moving. It is about facilitating that, as far as possible, while recognising the social disbenefits that can arise.

It is fair to say that when consultations were done at the time, which was during covid, accessibility to cash was the primary focus of concerns about the decline of branches. It is also fair to say that the provisions in the 2023 Act on the future accessibility of banking were not set in stone. It was clear that we were in a period of trend and change that would require further consultation and review on how it was working, and what further trends were occurring. The Opposition welcome the Government’s taking the opportunity to look at these issues again.

To give a sense of the pace of change—this has not been mentioned so far—in 2024, for the first time, cash accounted for less than 10% of payments in this country. We need to go back only eight years for it to be, by far, the No. 1 form of transaction in this country. For those Members who are old enough to remember them, cheques now account for only 0.2% of all payments, so there has been a significant change.

On the pace of change of bank branches, since January 2015 there have been 6,700 bank branch closures, according to Which? magazine. To put that into context, there are approximately 12,000 towns in the country, and about another 100 cities. That shows the significant withdrawal of physical premises across the country. The number of ATMs has also fallen by 40% since 2015.

On the plus side, we have largely seen an end to the long decline in post offices in this country. One of the benefits of our post office network was that post offices were present in many locations, although not all, and could provide aspects of the banking services that were important to people. The change to the trend for post offices is welcome. We want our post offices to continue to provide a broad range of services to local communities. Postmasters and postmistresses are often among the most trusted people in their community, and they can provide a range of services, but of course they do not necessarily have the same level of expertise in banking that one would find in a bank branch.

That takes me on to another point. This debate was starting to look like a bit of a hit-job on Lloyds bank. I think that it was just by chance that the first three bank closures referred to were all of Lloyds branches, so let me say that this is not just a Lloyds thing; it affects all financial institutions. On the other hand, our financial institutions and banks do a very good job for people. They are effective in making sure that people have a safe place for their money and that money can be transferred from A to B. They are good at developing new products and at trying to adapt to technological change.

[David Chadwick]

The hon. Member says that banks do a very good job. Is he not aware of the numerous outages that Lloyds has had on its banking apps over the past couple of years and indeed the past couple of weeks? Those outages create a reliance on physical infrastructure for people to access cash if they need to.

Does the hon. Member also agree that the banks can afford to pay for banking hubs? It is not the Government who should have to pay for them. Does he agree that banks have more than enough to cover the cost of these hubs?

[Richard Fuller]

I have to say to my Liberal Democrat friend that the Liberal Democrats’ position is that taxing big businesses, big banks and big tech can pay for everything. I think I have heard the moneys from that being allocated to well over 20 different applications. That may have a role—it is up to the Liberal Democrats to say—but the key point I was making is that, whether we like it or not, a vast number of the things we do are moving from analogue to digital, and banking is not isolated from that. Look at the way in which people communicate, the way in which legal services are likely to change and the way in which public services are likely to be delivered. The role of Government, back in 2022-23, was either to put up a block against that or to facilitate the change. We said that we would facilitate the change.

There are contributions made through the banks to fund the banking hubs. More broadly, on the major transition of banking into the digital age, I take the hon. Member’s points about outage concerns and about someone receiving £1 million in their bank account and wondering how it got there, but overall the transition by financial services in this country has been done very well. It is important, though, that the Government of the day recognise the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in the sector.

The issue of footfall is crucial, as is the point about being able to talk to a person. I recently went into a bank to withdraw some cash—not a huge amount, but a fair amount. I was asked, “Why are you taking your money out?” That might seem a rather intrusive question—I was going to say, “I’m putting it all on red in Las Vegas,” although I was not, obviously—but the reason for asking the question relates to a serious point that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch made. One issue that, back in 2022-23, I did not anticipate becoming so significant was how sinister online fraud on vulnerable people would become. With just a phone conversation, people can be intimidated or forced into thinking that they have to take money out of their account, and it ends up in criminal hands.

Online fraud is an evil crime, and it can affect anyone. It is a very sophisticated way to get to people who feel vulnerable. The best defence against it is the fact of having to go into a branch of a bank or financial institution and have someone over the counter look you in the eye, see how you feel, and ask important questions to reassure themselves that you are not the victim of a crime. I take that very seriously; when I was looking at the issue a few years ago, I was perhaps not as cognisant of it as I am now. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts.

Notwithstanding certain disagreements about the overall role of banks, this has been a debate in which all sides have urged the Minister and the Government to look at the update and the consultation in a serious way, think about what has been done correctly and see what, in today’s world, are the best changes to be made to the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

It is always welcome when Members attend such openings. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is no longer in his place, but I was pleased to hear him welcome the upcoming opening of the banking hub in Ilkley. I note what he says about the need for a hub in Keighley as well.

[David Chadwick]

Mine is the biggest constituency in England and Wales, and four or five towns in it sorely need a banking hub: Brecon and Presteigne are two such examples, beyond the hub that has already opened in Ystradgynlais. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for more than the 350 hubs that the Government have already committed to?

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member has tried to trick me into saying the name of his constituency or the towns in it before; as he well knows, I cannot pronounce them anywhere near as well as he can. I was about to answer the exact point that he makes. It is really important to note that the 350 figure is a floor, not a ceiling. Our manifesto commitment sets that floor of 350 hubs. I appreciate that the hon. Member is not asking me to call it right now, but I will: the Government, working with industry, hope to go above that number. That is not least because more than 270 hubs have already been announced. Our commitment is for 350 hubs over the course of this Parliament, and 18 months into the Parliament we are already at 270—hon. Members will see the trajectory. Of the 270 hubs that have been announced, 225 are now open. The remaining hubs that have been committed to are yet to open, but we expect them to in due course. To answer the hon. Member’s question, it is entirely possible that the 350 target will be surpassed, as and when more communities need banking hubs. I would welcome that, it sounds like he would welcome it and I am sure that other Members across the House would too.

Banking hubs provide assisted cash services through post office counters alongside community bankers from individual banks who meet customers face to face in a private room to offer support, as they would in a traditional branch, as has been mentioned. I was very sorry to hear the experiences with community bankers noted by the hon. Member for St Ives; that was not what I understood from colleagues in this place and what I have heard anecdotally outside this place. Indeed, when I visited the banking hub in Warwick in your constituency, Mr Western, I did not see queues of people waiting to see a community banker. Everything was happening in an orderly way, and community bankers could see people in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, I note the experiences that the hon. Member put on the record, and I am more than happy to look specifically at the issues in that banking hub.

Middle East: Economic Update

David Chadwick Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have increased the funding available to both UK Export Finance and the National Wealth Fund to invest and support our defence industry. I also support the work that she and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) are doing in ensuring that the financial services sector also lends to defence businesses, including scale-up businesses.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Almost two thirds of homes across Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe are dependent on heating oil, the price of which is now surging thanks to Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Iran. Will the Chancellor reassure my constituents that help will be on the way from the Government?

[Rachel Reeves]

The meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be open to all MPs and is taking place on Wednesday this week, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to attend that meeting. We are aware of the unique situation with heating oil. That is why I have instructed the Competition and Markets Authority, but I am also keen to hear directly from MPs.

Rural Fuel Duty Relief

David Chadwick Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Rural Fuel Duty Relief scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this debate, especially in the new year at a time when many people across the country will be watching the pennies closely.

As hon. Members representing rural constituencies will be aware, the rural fuel duty relief scheme was announced more than 15 years ago and supports people living in some of the most remote rural communities in Britain. Under the scheme, a 5p per litre tax relief on unleaded petrol or diesel is granted to specific filling stations in a small number of rural postcode sectors. That relief must be passed on to rural motorists, helping many with their commute, school run or weekly shopping. The scheme benefits around 125,000 local residents and many visitors across the United Kingdom.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Not a single part of Wales benefits from the rural fuel duty relief scheme, while rural areas in England and Scotland do, simply because of how the previous Conservative Government designed it. Does my hon. Friend agree that that unfair anomaly should be corrected and that the scheme should be extended to places such as Powys?

[Ian Roome]

I agree with my hon. Friend that more people could benefit from the scheme. I am sure the Minister will take note of that in his response. As I said, the scheme benefits around 125,000 local residents and many visitors across the UK, including the remote parts of the Scottish islands, Cumbria, Northumberland, North Yorkshire, the Isles of Scilly and Exmoor. That includes residents in my constituency of North Devon, who live in areas around Lynton and Lynmouth, Parracombe and Brendon, including many living in upland areas within the boundaries of Exmoor national park.

The tax relief is targeted at highly rural areas. A brief glance at a map shows that these are some of the most isolated and indispensable filling stations across the country. If someone forgets to fill up at Barbrook filling station in my constituency, while heading out over Exmoor, it is nearly 20 miles to the next fuel stop at Wheddon Cross or Minehead. When the rural fuel duty relief scheme was introduced under the coalition, and approval under EU state aid rules was granted in 2012, the relief was set by the Government at 5p per litre. That 5p per litre remains unchanged today in 2026, despite more than 30% of its purchasing power being eroded over that time because of inflation. An update to the scheme is now long overdue.

According to research by the Rural Services Network in 2023, transport difficulties in highly rural areas force households into paying high costs for motoring, which contribute significantly to rural poverty. A car is needed for daily life and for someone who earns a modest wage that is expensive. The research estimates that for every 10% decrease in public transport speed relative to motoring in any area, the average household pays more than £400 more for transport each year.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

David Chadwick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Wales is the poorest of our four nations. It has the highest levels of unemployment and the lowest wages. The family farm tax is yet another example of how this Government are going to hurt the Welsh economy with full knowledge of the consequences. They have decided to hit Wales, in whose economy agriculture is a major sector, with an extra tax. It is, quite frankly, an unacceptable and horrific way for this Government to start off.

Family farms are the backbone of our rural economy, the heart of our food system and central to the survival of many communities in Wales. People in Wales are shocked that this Labour Government have decided to come for one of our major industries. People in Wales are accustomed to the Conservatives unpicking our major industries and taking them out—they expect that—but they expect better from the Labour party.

When family farms are hit, the damage spreads far beyond the farm gate; it hurts vets, suppliers, hauliers, markets, local shops and rural high streets. That is why it was so deeply disappointing that 23 of Wales’s 27 Labour MPs chose to vote this policy through despite clear warnings from rural Wales. The scale of what is being put at risk is enormous.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

My hon. Friend’s communities are not dissimilar to mine; they are very rural and very mountainous, and upland farming is critical to his communities, as it is to mine. Does he think the Labour Government have failed to understand that wealth is not concentrated in the hands of famers in the way that they think? It is entirely possible to be an upland farmer in my hon. Friend’s patch or in mine and to be earning the minimum wage or, indeed, less—the University of Cumbria shows that the average upland farmer earns less on average than the minimum wage—and yet to be in a position, after inheritance tax is due, to be paying £20,000 a year or more while earning only £16,000. That is not right, is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Chadwick]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point to the struggles of upland farmers, who deserve to earn a living from their work—they are working people too, but they are not being recognised as such.

Agriculture and the wider food and drink sector supports more than 228,000 jobs in Wales and generates more than £24 billion in turnover each year. This is not a marginal industry; it is a pillar of the Welsh economy. Industry bodies have warned that these tax changes will force family farms to sell land or assets simply to meet higher liabilities, accelerating consolidation and driving our young people out of rural Wales, which damages our food security and local supply chains, hollows out communities and obviously undermines our tax base, too.

This is not just an economic but a cultural issue. Some 43% of people working in agriculture in Wales speak Welsh, compared with 20% of the population overall. To undermine family farming is to undermine Welsh culture and the Welsh language itself.

What makes this policy even harder to defend is the Government’s selective approach. Ministers have refused to act on supermarket profiteering—with Tesco alone seeing its profits rise by more than 100%—yet are content to squeeze family farms that are already grappling with rising costs and post-Brexit uncertainty. The Welsh Affairs Committee has called for this policy to be paused so that a Wales-specific impact assessment could be carried out. It is a grave mistake that that request has been ignored. This is becoming a familiar pattern for those of us from Wales. There has been rail underfunding, a refusal to devolve powers, including over taxation, and now a tax that threatens one of Wales’s most important sectors.

Time and again, Labour has advanced policies in this Parliament that would hit Wales the hardest, and waved them through regardless. The Welsh Liberal Democrats oppose this tax because we believe that family farms should form the spine of a prosperous rural economy. Rural Wales—in fact, the rural economy across the whole UK—deserves a plan for growth, not punishment driven by ideology.

The Welsh Government deserve a Government who understand the value, strength and work that our agricultural sector provides to rural Wales. I think of the tens of young farmers’ clubs in my constituency; they are run by incredible young people who form community groups and build the confidence of the young people in their communities, as well as running their family businesses. We need those young people to stay in Wales, run their businesses well, and create the jobs and employment that will enable rural Wales to prosper. Instead, they are being told by this Government, “No, we’re going to hit you with an extra tax”. This will fall on the shoulders of Welsh young farmers. The Welsh economy deserves a Government who understand Wales, and that is not what we are getting so far.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

David Chadwick Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gideon Amos]

The right hon. Member, for whom I usually have respect, was clearly not listening to what I said. It is possible for there to be several features to a change in tax policy. Our argument, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans pointed out, is that we need a comprehensive review of property taxes. The effect of the stamp duty holiday was to increase house prices. It may, none the less, be a valuable policy, because it may free up transactions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) argued. My observation is that these are not the policies that will help people who are struggling to afford a home to rent and to get on the housing ladder in the first place. They may be valuable for other reasons, but they will not address that problem. As I say, coupled with that we need a big investment in rent-to-own housing. Since 2015—this is the big point, which would be unaffected by the Conservative proposal— the multiple of income needed to get a mortgage, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, has risen from four-and-a-half to six-and-a-half times their income.

Without more genuinely affordable homes in significant numbers and wider tax reform, this cut is unfunded. It will leave first-time buyers with nothing new and transfer funds to the wealthiest. That is simply not enough to help my constituents. We need a much more ambitious renaissance in the building of council and social rent homes, and we need new measures to help people to get on to the housing ladder.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is calling out the consequence of Thatcherite policies. Does he agree that no country has suffered more from Thatcherite policies than Wales?

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion of his constituency in Wales and has experienced the effects of the reduction in and dwindling of council and social rent homes around the country in Wales, as in other parts of the country, including in my own constituency. We used to have 30,000 council homes available, but we now have only 6,000, and that number is going down every year.

This is not about the broken promise not to allow people to buy their homes; it is about the broken promise of not replacing those council and social rent homes. That has to be addressed, and it was never addressed by multiple Conservative Governments. Without those changes and wider tax reform and investment in social and council rent homes, this policy on its own would do nothing to help my constituents, and I am unable to support it.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Chadwick Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

4. If she will meet farming representatives to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on farmers.

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

6. If she will meet with representatives of the farming industry to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on that sector.

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

In my former role as the Minister with responsibility for the UK tax system, and on the Chancellor’s behalf, I have met farming representatives and farmers. Those discussions have included the National Farmers Union, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Ulster Farmers Union, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland and the Farmers Union of Wales. After listening, however, the Government continue to believe that the approach we have set out is the right one.

[David Chadwick]

Last weekend I attended the Sennybridge show, where I met young farmers from Brecknockshire who were recruiting new members and fundraising for good causes. There is one question to which they would like to hear an answer from the Chancellor: why are the Government targeting family farms for tax rises rather than going after the big banks, which are closing branches right across my constituency? Why should young farmers have to pay for the mess left behind by the Conservatives?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman talks about good causes. I assume he would agree that the NHS is a good cause, that public services are a good cause, and that a stable economy that encourages investment in our country is a good cause to pursue. As hon. Members have said many times already, the Opposition parties, including the hon. Gentleman’s, are very happy to reap the rewards of spending and investment, but are totally incapable of taking any of the difficult decisions to raise the revenue necessary to support them.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

David Chadwick Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the failure of other Governments—both the previous Government at Westminster and the current Government in Scotland. When preparing this work in opposition, I was very taken by investors saying, “When I can invest anywhere in the world, if the UK says it is going to do something and Germany says it is going to do something, I am probably going to bet on Germany over the UK.” That has to change because Britain is a brilliant country with lots of opportunity. The long-term stability we are setting out in our strategy, our long-term spending plans and our commitment to stability are unlocking that investment to create great opportunities for people across the whole country, including in Scotland.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I hope the Minister appreciates just how insulting it is to Welsh ears for us to be told that we are getting a fair deal on railway funding, when we know that we have been cheated out of billions of pounds due to the classification of several projects as England and Wales projects. Wales is getting only five railway stations between Newport and Cardiff. That is hardly national renewal, is it? Will he bet on Wales and commit to projects outside that belt, such as projects across mid-Wales and west Wales or the electrification of the north and south lines?

[Darren Jones]

There is a key difference: under the last Government, Wales did not get a penny, but under this Labour Government, working with the Labour Government in Wales, it has had not only the largest real-terms increase in spending since devolution began, but £455 million for rail infrastructure, nearly £130 million for coal tip safety and many other things. That is the benefit of two Labour Governments working together to deliver for the people of Wales, and the hon. Gentleman may want to be a little bit more grateful in future.

Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

David Chadwick Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this debate.

One of the most meaningful moments I have had so far as a Member of Parliament was hearing the elderly residents of a nearby care home thank me for securing a banking hub in Ystradgynlais. That hub is now open and working, providing an essential service to residents and small businesses, many of whom were previously facing long and expensive journeys just to access basic banking services. The local response has been overwhelmingly positive, with many residents saying that the bringing back of those banking services is the first time they have seen their community restoring services in many years.

The opening of this hub did not happen by chance. I put on the record my thanks to all the staff at Link and the regulator who engaged with us throughout the process. They took the time to understand the community’s cash and banking needs and sought to find a solution. Their involvement was constructive, and I commend them for it. That is how an effective regulator can make life better for ordinary people by reining in corporate greed.

If the Government are looking for ways to win back favour, surely committing to more banking hubs must be one of them. The Government have committed to 350, but in reality, as we have heard, the country needs far more. The demand is there and the model works, but the current framework is far too restrictive. I have submitted applications for new hubs in my constituency in Pontardawe, Brecon, Presteigne and Builth Wells, each of which has a clear case. We need a system that supports those applications, instead of holding them back through outdated rules and artificial limits.

In Brecon, we have one final bank branch remaining. In Hay-on-Wye—a town blessed with a bustling high street and a number of independent businesses—not a single bank remains. Elsewhere in Radnorshire, Presteigne saw its last bank close earlier this year, and Rhayader is troubled by community bankers who do not wish to visit it. In Pontardawe, in the Swansea valley, Lloyds is due to close the final remaining branch later this year citing a lack of footfall, despite queues from the door to the counter. All the while, banks continue to report billions of pounds in annual profits and rising dividends. They say they have no option but to close these branches because of the digital transformation, yet some of them cite statistics showing that up to 50% of their customers still need physical services.

The banks have fundamentally changed their service offering. Who would now deposit their life savings with someone that offers to meet them in a car park once a week? That is what Charlie Nunn, the CEO of Lloyds Banking Group, has done to his customers in Presteigne, Brecon, Ystradgynlais and now Pontardawe. He took home a staggering £5.6 million last year, having closed more than 140 bank branches to save his company some overheads, and managing to bump up the Lloyds dividend by 13%. Does he deserve that? Does he know the misery he has caused people in doing so? Will he stop the closure of the Pontardawe branch, something that more than 500 local residents have called on him to do?

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

David Chadwick Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

The partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy has real potential to be a huge force for good—we really feel that down in Cornwall. It will spearhead the development of offshore renewable energy in a speedy but sustainable way, investing in energy production initially and laying the groundwork for our energy security of the future, as well as building our local communities, our infrastructure and our supply chains in some of the most left-behind and deprived parts of the UK.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 4 and to express my party’s frustration with the Government’s refusal thus far to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales. It is the firm view of the Liberal Democrats, both here in Westminster and in the Senedd, that this decision is wrong for Wales and its economy. Under the current system, the profits generated from Wales’s vast natural resources flow directly to the UK Treasury, offering no benefit to the communities where that wealth is created.

The Crown Estate in Wales is set to generate millions annually from offshore wind energy leases in Welsh waters. If this money were kept within Wales, it could contribute an estimated additional £50 million to the Welsh Government’s budget at a time when public services in Wales are crumbling. It is nothing short of outrageous that the Labour Government in Westminster seek to deny Wales these vital sources of income, which could help to address the crisis in our public services, economy and infrastructure. The Labour Government’s refusal to devolve these powers further entrenches the outrageous notion by Labour and the Conservatives that Wales is a lesser nation than Scotland.

While Scotland has controlled its Crown Estate since 2017, Wales, despite having vast Crown Estate assets within its borders, has been left without those powers. The benefits of devolution for Scotland have been clear, with the Scottish Crown Estate generating over £103 million for the public finances since 2017. The excuses we have heard from the UK Government for failing to put Wales on an equal footing simply do not hold up. Patronising comments from Ministers about how devolving the Crown Estate would not be in Wales’s “best interests” or would be a “waste of time” are frankly an insult to the people of Wales.

This Government claim to support growth, but they seem determined to keep Wales from reaching its full potential. Instead of empowering Welsh communities to harness the benefits of their own resources, profits continue to flow directly to London. That is not the vision of growth to benefit local communities or level up left-behind communities; it is a continuation of the Conservatives’ failed economic model, which prioritises centralisation and investment in the south-east of England over everywhere else. It would be a great mistake if those in power in Westminster were to deny Wales the opportunity to build a better future for our communities. I hope the Government will change their mind.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I wish to primarily address new clause 7, tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) and for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), and to express opposition to it. It very much reflects what is in new clause 1, in terms of seeking devolution of the Crown Estate, but in this case to the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of the assets there. I oppose that for a number of reasons. It presently is a reserved matter, and I strongly believe that is how it should stay. I say that not because that is right ideologically, but because practically it is beyond belief that the current Stormont Executive could ever handle the controversies that come with the Crown Estate.

This is an Executive in Stormont that have been in existence for almost 13 months and still cannot agree a programme for Government. If we were to hand them something as controversial as control of the Crown Estate, we all know what the outcome would be. Why is it controversial? For one specific and historical reason. Lough Foyle is controlled and owned by the Crown Estate. It is a piece of water that separates County Londonderry, which is in Northern Ireland, from County Donegal, which is in the Republic of Ireland, but the entirety of Lough Foyle since last we had a King Charles rests under British control. In 1662, Charles II gifted Lough Foyle, the surrounding waters, the seabed and the waters within it to the Irish Society. The Irish Society was a conglomerate of various companies from the City of London, which did a great deal to develop and build the city of Londonderry; and as part of that, I presume, it was gifted control over Lough Foyle. In 1952, the Irish Society conveyed Lough Foyle to the Crown Estate.

A divided Executive in Northern Ireland would be hopelessly incapable of resolving the issues that flow from the somewhat controversial aspect of the entirety of Lough Foyle, right up to the coastline of County Donegal, being properly, legally and in perpetuity in the control of the Crown Estate. Therefore, devolving the Crown Estate to the Northern Ireland Executive would be disastrous for the good management of the lough and for the uncontroversial continuance of its ability to be developed. That might be a particular situation, but it is in addition to my opposition from an ideological point of view and my belief that the Crown Estate is a national asset that should continue to be of a reserved category. I think the proposition in new clause 7 would be the utmost folly; I trust that the Government will resist it and that the House will reject it.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

If the right hon. Member waits just a moment, I will come to some of the direct benefits for the people of Wales of retaining the Crown Estate in its current form.

It is important to emphasise that the Crown Estate’s marine investments are made on a portfolio-wide basis across England and Wales. Devolving to Wales would disrupt existing investments, as they would need to be restructured to accommodate a Welsh-specific entity. To devolve the Crown Estate at this time would risk jeopardising the pipeline of offshore wind development in the Celtic sea, which is planned for into the 2030s. The Crown Estate’s offshore wind leasing round 5 is spread across the English and Welsh administrative boundaries in the Celtic sea. It was launched in February last year and is expected to contribute 4.5 GW of total energy capacity—enough to power 4 million homes.

In addition to energy, the extensive jobs and supply chain requirements of round 5 will also likely deliver significant benefits for Wales and the wider United Kingdom. Lumen, an advisory firm to the Crown Estate, has estimated that manufacturing, transporting and assembling the wind farms could potentially create around 5,300 jobs and a £1.4 billion boost for the UK economy. Devolution would also delay UK-wide grid connectivity reform. The Crown Estate is using its data and expertise as manager of the seabed to feed into the National Energy System Operator’s new strategic spatial energy plan. On Wales, the Crown Estate is working in partnership with the energy system operator to ensure that its pipeline of Welsh projects—the biggest of which is the round 5 offshore wind opportunity in the Celtic sea—can benefit from this co-ordinated approach to grid connectivity up front.

[David Chadwick]

If devolution presents such enormous barriers, why are the Government choosing to put the headquarters of Great British Energy in Scotland?

[James Murray]

GB Energy is for the benefit of the whole of the UK. It is absolutely right to locate its headquarters in Aberdeen, given the strong connection between Aberdeen and use of the assets of the North sea to generate power for the entire United Kingdom. In fact, the hon. Gentleman’s example underlines my point, which is that when different parts of the United Kingdom work together, we can achieve more than we can separately. I thank him for endorsing my point.

It would not make commercial sense to introduce a new entity, with control of assets only within Wales, into a complex operating environment in which partnerships have already been formed. Furthermore, the Crown Estate’s assets and interests in Wales are fundamentally smaller than its assets in England, and would likely not be commercially viable if their costs were unsupported by the wider Crown Estate portfolio. The Crown Estate can take a longer-term approach to its investments and spread the cost of investments across its entire portfolio. A self-contained, single entity in Wales would not have the same ability; neither would it benefit from the expertise that the Crown Estate has developed over decades of delivering offshore wind at scale. A devolved entity would be starting from scratch.

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

David Chadwick Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I begin by extending my gratitude to all those who have worked tirelessly in the Lords on the Bill over the past seven months. I note in particular the way in which full transparency was offered and delivered by Lord Livermore, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in response to requests for clarification and evidence. I hope that we can replicate such co-operation as the Bill passes through this House.

The objectives of the Bill are to broaden the investment and borrowing powers of the Crown Estate and to strengthen its corporate governance, in order to help accelerate, among other things, the delivery of new renewable energy, particularly offshore wind. We are generally supportive of the Bill and would welcome further scrutiny on issues such as the cap on borrowing; accountability in the relationship with Great British Energy; managing the conflicts between competing interests and values of our seabed and coastline, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael); community benefit; devolution in Wales; and our climate and nature duty. I will proceed to elucidate those issues.

In the UK, we are off track in meeting our climate targets, following previous years when the Conservatives have dithered and rowed back on pledges. We need to increase investment in renewable energy in order to strengthen our energy security and to help families keep warm and lower their energy bills, particularly during this cost of living crisis. As a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, families and businesses have been left exposed to skyrocketing bills. For far too long we have been reliant on autocrats such as Putin to meet our energy needs.

The Crown Estate oversees 200,000 acres of land, 12,000 km of coastline and a seabed area larger than the combined land mass of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the owner and steward of the seabed, the Crown Estate leases plots to offshore wind developers and other infrastructure projects, playing a fundamental role in the sustainable development of this national asset and in the potential for securing our world-leading position on floating offshore wind development.

For many years, however, the Crown Estate has been constrained in its ability to borrow through the Treasury, forcing it—as we understand it—to resort to selling off assets in order to fund its investments for the future. The changes proposed in the Bill, in partnership with Great British Energy, hold the potential to unlock investment in vital infrastructure across supply chains, ports and green energy sectors, and to accelerate progress by unblocking the huge delays in the delivery of new green energy, which is desperately needed following the slow progress made under the previous Government.

It is reassuring to hear that during the Bill’s passage through the Lords, assurances were given that there would be a borrowing cap of 20% of the loan-to-value ratio. We look forward to seeing that reflected in the updated framework agreement as we go into Committee. On the day the Bill was introduced to the House of Lords, the Government announced the Crown Estate’s partnership with Great British Energy to bring forward new offshore wind developments. Despite the significance of that relationship between the two, the original Bill did not provide clarification on or accountability in how it would work.

Clause 4, which was introduced by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, ensures important transparency through annual reports on activities within that relationship. However, we also share Energy UK’s concerns about how that relationship will work, particularly in relation to other private sector investment. We support its calls for annual schedules for offshore wind leasing that identify locations and target capacities. Such a road map would help developers and suppliers to plan investments, including necessary port upgrades, and would align with the offshore wind industrial growth plan.

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this legislation should have set out a framework for devolving the Crown Estate in Wales, as is the case in Scotland?

[Pippa Heylings]

Indeed, I read the report of the debate in the Lords, and there was a passionate request for the Crown Estate in Wales to be devolved to the Welsh Administration and for the benefits to be felt by Welsh communities. We look forward to discussing that in Committee.

Another crucial area that has been mentioned is the mapping of the seabed around our coastline. The Crown Estate has already begun that work with award-winning geospatial techniques. That key contribution to spatial planning for our coastal and marine areas needs to balance economic development with environmental responsibility. For years, the Liberal Democrats have called for comprehensive land and sea use frameworks. Although the Government have committed to a land use framework, we remain far behind on marine spatial planning. We have heard today, in response to the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland, about the conflict of interest in the Crown Estate leading on determining priorities in our coastal and marine areas. It is on that point that we seek assurances.

Statutory bodies such as the Maritime Management Organisation are responsible for prioritising and managing competing interests and values between users of our coastline, including in fishing, as has been mentioned, and in tourism, amenity use and shipping. All those things need to be managed, and that can be done through marine spatial management. We caution against the Crown Estate becoming the leader by default because it is the owner and steward of the seabed and has the capacity for mapping. We know that it is undertaking liaison work with fisheries, and that is good, but the MMO is the statutory body for managing those competing interests, and we seek assurances that that will be clarified in Committee.

Raising the issue of devolution to Wales brings me to the key point of community benefits. We need to know how communities will benefit from the investment in infrastructure and renewable projects facilitated by this Bill. Local communities must not feel that this energy transformation is being done to them, but that it is empowering them to participate and benefit from it. While the new borrowing powers will enable investment in offshore wind, they will also facilitate property development across the 185,000 acres of the Crown Estate, so the Bill must do more to ensure that those developments do not ride roughshod over community concerns regarding planning, infrastructure and environmental standards, both on land and at sea. People must have a say in the decisions that affect them and, where infrastructure is concerned, they should also receive the benefits where appropriate.

I was really pleased to see the inclusion of amendment 10, championed by Baroness Hayman. That amendment requires the commissioners to

“review the impact of their activities”

on sustainable development. As Liberal Democrats, we have long called for climate and nature duties to be a requirement of all public bodies. As Baroness Hayman wisely said,

“What matters is the endgame and the results… What matters is the impact we have and how much we have shifted the dial in terms of what the Crown Estate achieves in support of the Government’s climate and nature objectives.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1425.]

During the debate in the Lords, an undertaking was given that the framework agreement would be updated to include a definition of the meaning of sustainable development as regards the Crown Estate, with explicit reference to part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008—the targets for 2050—as well as section 56 of that Act, and to sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 regarding nature recovery. I look forward to seeing an updated version of the framework agreement to reassure us that this definition of sustainable development has been included.

This Bill presents a trident of opportunity. It can enhance energy security, reduce household bills and bring us closer to achieving our net zero targets, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the need for financial accountability, the duty to protect nature, the need to devolve to Wales, and the need to ensure that all communities are included in the crucial journey to net zero.