Oral Answers to Questions
Lucy Rigby Excerpts(2 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
This Government are backing our brilliant British businesses to trade globally, including through our new trade strategy that expands UK Export Finance’s capacity to £80 billion. This Government have secured new trade deals with India, South Korea, the EU and the US to back British businesses globally, delivering improved access to key markets and protecting British jobs.
Jacob Collier
I recently joined Cosy Direct for its second King’s Award presentation, this time for international trade. Cosy Direct is an award-winning business in early years education resources, exporting globally and continuing to grow. The Chancellor saw its success, and its goats, at first hand when she visited with me last year. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Pete, Amanda and all the team, and will she say what work she is doing to allow such businesses to expand and export globally?
Lucy Rigby
I warmly congratulate Pete, Amanda and the wider team—and the goats—on their success. In inviting me to do so, my hon. Friend shows that he is indeed a true champion for the businesses in his constituency. The support that this Government are giving to businesses will enable more of our fantastic British companies to export globally and to emulate Cosy Direct’s success.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Integrated industrial clusters such as Saltend in my constituency provide fundamental chemicals and other inputs into defence and wider industries right across the country. Yet higher energy costs and global events mean that they are under unprecedented pressure. Will the Minister look at establishing an industrial support fund, so that rather than having an ad hoc approach, such as that seen when supporting Grangemouth, we have something strategic to ensure that we do not lose the industrial base upon which so much of this country depends?
Lucy Rigby
I believe the right hon. Member mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme. That is being expanded. He will also be aware of the British industry supercharger package, which provides additional price relief from April 2026 as well.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury will know that our financial services industry is a shining example of our international economic might. However, overinterpretation of rules and regulations has led to banks being nervous of taking risks, and that has slowed growth in the City and holds up international trade. For example, overinterpretation of anti-money laundering rules means that foreign inward remittances can take up to two weeks to clear into a UK bank account, while poor classification of risk-rated assets potentially starves businesses of growth debt capital. Will the Economic Secretary please assure the House that this ever-unnecessary tightening of the rules will be addressed in the financial services Bill, due to be announced in the King’s Speech?
Lucy Rigby
The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to pre-empt anything that may or may not be announced in the King’s Speech. What I will tell him, though, as he already knows, is that this Government are backing our financial services sector to the hilt to ensure that it continues to be the world-leading success that it is.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many people as possible, and we recognise that the LISA is not working for everyone. That is exactly why we have launched a short consultation on the implementation of a new ISA product that will support more first-time buyers. That new product will include the Government bonus being paid at the point the individual makes a withdrawal for a home purchase, therefore removing the need for a withdrawal charge.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Leicester South has a home ownership rate of just over 40%—nearly 23 points below the national average—in a city where the average house costs 8.5 times average local earnings. My young constituents work very hard and save responsibly to get on to the housing ladder, yet the tax system offers them absolutely nothing, while incorporated landlords deduct full mortgage interest through a company structure. Canada and Nordic countries are offering targeted tax relief for first-time buyers. Has the Chancellor considered introducing a similar relief here to ensure that young people are supported by the tax system, not left behind?
Lucy Rigby
This Labour Government are committed to enabling more people to realise the dream of home ownership. Mortgages have become more affordable under this Government, thanks to increased economic stability and six interest rate cuts.
Bills Presented
Newhaven West Beach (Public Access)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
James MacCleary presented a Bill to provide for a right of public access on foot to Newhaven West Beach; to impose duties on the harbour authority in respect of that right, including requirements to open and maintain specified access routes; to provide for exemptions from those duties for reasons of safety or in connection with harbour operations; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 436).
Defence Bonds (Proposals)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
James MacCleary presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the issuing of defence bonds, including for purchase by members of the public; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 437).
Car Insurance Industry: Fraud
Lucy Rigby Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate and highlighting the impact that fraud can have and the devious tactics that fraudsters use. She also spoke about the interplay between those issues and the legal profession. I will address the people who run such platforms later on. I also want to thank other Members who contributed to this thoughtful and important debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), as well as the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord).
Car insurance is not a luxury; it is a legal requirement. For many businesses and families, it is essential to daily life, whether taking children to school, getting to work or caring for relatives. As has been said, fraud undermines confidence in the motor insurance market. It causes direct harm to consumers and drives up costs across the system. Those costs are ultimately paid by people who do the right thing by driving with insurance, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell pointed out that some drivers—far too many, in fact—do not get insurance, but drive regardless, which is a criminal offence. I regret to say that between 2019 and 2024, the cost of claims involving uninsured drivers increased by a huge 37%. As my hon. Friend said, that increases premiums for everyone else. The Government are considering how, in the light of its seriousness, the penalties should be strengthened for that offence. I hope that he can take from what I have just said that the Government take fraud extremely seriously.
Fraud is the largest crime type in the UK. It harms individuals and businesses, as well as costing our economy billions of pounds each year. It is increasingly driven by organised crime and enabled by technology, as hon. Members have highlighted. That is why fraud is a national security priority for this Government, and we will do what we must to protect the public. In honouring our manifesto commitment, the Government published the new and expanded fraud strategy in March, as we have heard. The central focus of the strategy is disruption: denying criminals the ability to commit fraud in the first place by targeting the tools and methods they use to reach victims. That means acting across the system of Government, law enforcement, regulators, financial institutions, technology companies and telecoms providers, because no single organisation can tackle fraud alone.
As part of the strategy, we are investing £31 million in a new online crime centre that will bring together the Government, law enforcement, GCHQ and industry to identify and address the technological enablers of fraud and deliver high-impact interventions. In practice, that means better data and real-time analysis so that we can identify patterns earlier and take faster action. That could mean taking down fraudulent websites, disrupting malicious advertising networks or supporting the freezing of accounts linked to fraud. Alongside that, we have launched a call for evidence on economic crime information sharing. We want to remove barriers that can prevent firms and agencies from acting on intelligence earlier so that suspected scam activity can be identified and stopped before more people are harmed.
Let me turn to paid ad spoofing and fraudulent advertising, which was raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The Government recognise that paid-for advertising is being exploited by criminals to reach potential victims at scale. Spoofed ads are designed to look like they come from trusted brands, insurers, brokers, comparison sites and even public bodies. Those are particularly pernicious examples. As the hon. Member noted, they can be highly convincing. Indeed, to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, they look too good to be true. They can appear at the top of search results and be targeted at people precisely when they are looking for help, as the shadow Economic Secretary explained.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about ghost broking. My statistics might well be worse than the ones that he read out, because my understanding is that the Insurance Fraud Bureau thinks that ghost broking increased by 50% in the last two years. Whatever the exact statistic, there is a serious increase in the crime. My hon. Friend also highlighted a troubling example of identity theft and pointed to the links between ghost broking and follow-on activities. The story that he told was hard to hear.
All these things are not just consumer issues, but significant questions of responsibility and liability in the online ecosystem. If criminals can buy their way into prominence through paid advertising, we must ensure that the systems that place and profit from those adverts do not turn a blind eye. That is exactly why the Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on the largest social media platforms to tackle fraudulent adverts on their services. Ofcom is due to consult on those measures later this year. Once implemented, Ofcom will have the power to take robust enforcement action when it finds non-compliance, including fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.
The Government have also launched a new partnership between the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and industry: the online advertising taskforce. The purpose is to strengthen and maximise the adoption of transparency standards across the wider programmatic ecosystem so that bad actors can be identified, disrupted and, when appropriate, prosecuted. That work will report back in early 2027, and the Government have been clear that we will take legislative action within this Parliament if there are not sufficient improvements.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire and the shadow EST referred to claims management companies and legal professionals who associate themselves with such companies, and the links between them and car insurance fraud. The Ministry of Justice leads on elements of that agenda but, in some areas, the Financial Conduct Authority has responsibility. I hope the hon. Member will be reassured by the fact that there is ongoing dialogue on the issue between His Majesty’s Treasury and the MOJ to determine what might be done in this area. I hope she will agree that that addresses some of her important points.
I want to address specifically the link between online fraud and car insurance. Insurance fraud is a serious issue for all the reasons that I have noted, and it has been well covered in this debate. However, it has an interaction with online criminality. The spoofed ads that are used to harvest personal data, misdirect consumers to fake brokers and facilitate scams ultimately feed wider fraud, particularly serious forms of money laundering. The Government are working closely with the industry, regulators and consumer groups to close the gaps that criminals exploit. I should add that the FCA is alive to the issue of ghost broking and is looking into it specifically.
In October 2024, the Home Office launched the insurance fraud charter with key insurance firms to reduce insurance fraud. The charter supports stronger collaboration and shared action to prevent, detect and disrupt fraud, because the more effectively we tackle fraud at source, the more we protect consumers and the integrity of the market.
More broadly, the Government’s motor insurance taskforce, which published its final report in 2025, included actions for regulators, industry and the Government to tackle fraud, given the unfortunate role that fraudulent activity plays in increasing claim costs and, in turn, premiums for all consumers.
It is also important to be clear about the wider framework that supports this work. Financial institutions are required to maintain robust systems and controls to detect and prevent financial crime under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Banks must report certain suspicious activity to the National Crime Agency under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and they may also freeze and block accounts if suspicious activity is detected. We have also recently introduced new rules allowing banks to delay and investigate suspicious payments for up to 72 hours, which supports the interception of suspicious payments, giving firms more time to prevent funds from reaching fraudsters in complex cases and helping to break the spell that fraudsters have over victims. As we have set out in the fraud strategy, we are reinforcing the system-wide response through the Online Crime Centre and improved information sharing so that suspected scam accounts can be spotted sooner and action taken more quickly.
I do not pretend that tackling fraud is simple. Fraudsters adapt quickly, and technology, including some of the technology that we have been talking about today, moves very fast, but the direction of travel is very clear. We are shifting from a reactive model, picking up the pieces after harm occurs, to a disruption model that targets the infrastructure that criminals rely on, including the online advertising routes they use to reach victims.
Through our fraud strategy, the Online Crime Centre, strong action on fraudulent advertising via the Online Safety Act, and further work through the online advertising taskforce, backed by a clear commitment to legislate if necessary, we are taking decisive action to protect the public and disrupt the criminals behind these crimes.
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire again for raising these important issues. I reiterate that the Government recognise the importance of car insurance to people’s lives and livelihoods, and we are determined to tackle the fraud that drives up costs for honest motorists.
Draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
Draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Lucy Rigby Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
Lucy Rigby
Both statutory instruments are made under FSMA, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. Together, the two instruments will help to deliver a more agile and responsive capital framework for UK banks and investment firms.
Following the EU exit, the UK retained a body of financial services legislation known as assimilated law, which includes the capital requirements regulation, which sets the detailed and often technical capital rules. As hon. Members know, the UK follows the FSMA model of regulation, which involves regulatory standards being set by expert independent regulators that work within a policy framework set by Government and Parliament.
The Government are now applying the FSMA model to the CRR by revoking the CRR, so that the Prudential Regulation Authority can replace requirements in legislation with requirements in PRA rules, resulting in a more user-friendly, single-source book of prudential rules for firms. Where important elements of the CRR need to stay in legislation to provide the policy framework within which the PRA must operate, those elements are restated, using powers provided under FSMA 2023.
The first SI that I will discuss is the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which simply restate important definitions from the CRR that need to stay on the statute book. For example, the definition of what constitutes an investment firm is being restated in legislation, rather than being defined by the PRA rule book. That is necessary for the continuity of existing legislation and to ensure that the Government and Parliament remain in control of which regulatory activities should be regulated. The instrument does not introduce new regulatory requirements, and it does not make any substantive change to the scope or effect of the definitions being restated. Its purpose is simply to maintain legal continuity and to ensure that the prudential framework continues to operate as intended as we complete the move to the FSMA model.
The second SI that I will discuss is the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The UK remains committed to the full and consistent adoption of the Basel reforms, and the PRA intends to implement most of the new Basel 3.1 rules from 1 January 2027. That will help to ensure that the banking system is well capitalised, while giving domestic-focused firms the regulatory certainty that they need to plan for the future and to invest in the real economy, including small businesses and infrastructure projects.
We recognise, however, that the timing of implementation in other major jurisdictions remains unclear, in particular for certain market risk requirements affecting banks that use internal models. That is particularly relevant for the internationally active firms with cross-border trading activity. Implementing those specific requirements in the UK ahead of clarity elsewhere risks unnecessary operational complexity for internationally active firms and potentially misaligned implementation, which is exactly why the Government, in conjunction with the PRA, decided to build in flexibility to the UK’s approach.
For the new internal model market-risk requirements, the element of Basel 3.1 that will most affect the ability of UK banks to compete in international markets, implementation will be delayed until 1 January 2028. The draft instrument gives effect to that approach by disapplying the updated internal market risk rules during the transitional period from 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027 and, during that period, firms will continue to apply the existing requirements. This limited delay will allow the UK to flex the new internal model requirements for market risk, should that prove necessary, to ensure that the UK remains competitive with other major jurisdictions. The draft regulations also provide the Treasury with the ability to extend the transitional period by making further regulations. Any such extension would be time limited, subject to parliamentary approval and used only if necessary to respond to material international developments.
In summary, the draft regulations bring near to completion the work to deliver a more agile and responsive prudential regime for banks and investment firms, and I commend them to the Committee.
Lucy Rigby
I am very grateful to the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their input on the draft regulations. Their questions are very apt and go straight to the nub of this issue.
What is happening in other jurisdictions is really important, and that is why we are seeking to include a degree of flexibility in the draft regulations. As I said in my opening remarks, we are postponing a certain element until 1 January 2028 for internationally active banks, and I set out why doing so is really important. However, there is potential for further flexibility, exactly as I said, subject to what goes on in other jurisdictions.
As I am sure the shadow EST knows, the US recently put out some revised proposals in March. Without getting into all the nitty-gritty detail, the upshot is that the revised US proposals remain broadly aligned with international standards and the UK’s rules. Briefly, I also want to touch on the EU, because that is also very important. Again, there is broad alignment, although there has been some commentary in the press that the EU banking union is thinking about going out to an even longer date—they were talking about 2030. I think I am right in saying that we are yet to have that fully confirmed. If anything, that comes back to the importance of building in flexibility. We, particularly the PRA, need to have a sufficient degree of agility and nimbleness built into what we can do, which is the approach that we are taking. Should international circumstances change, we and the PRA need to remain alert to those positions.
For all the reasons I have set out, which I will not repeat, the draft regulations are designed to ensure that, for our internationally active banks, we do not create an undue, unnecessary and problematic degree of inconsistency between all those very important jurisdictions. As I made clear, the draft regulations allow the Treasury the power to extend the transitional period that we are putting in place, if necessary, which would then be subject to the negative procedure.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT CREDIT INSTITUTIONS AND INVESTMENT FIRMS (MISCELLANEOUS DEFINITIONS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Lucy Rigby.)
Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA
Lucy Rigby Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and for further airing these issues. As he mentioned, there has been a long history of parliamentary interest in these issues, over at least 14 years. That is for good reason, for not only are we deeply committed to justice and do we abhor injustice in this country, but SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy. The events of the IHRP scandal were completely wrong and abhorrent.
From a personal point of view, I cannot deny how hard it is to hear and read about horrific personal circumstances, not least those of the Glanville family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan); the Evans family, referred to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone); and the Lilley family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to, in some instances there are hideous personal tragedies, as no doubt may have been experienced by some of the people who are sat behind him in the Public Gallery today.
To that end, I thank and acknowledge my hon. Friends the Members for Poole, for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—the latter knows I struggle sometimes to pronounce the name of his constituency; I hope he thinks I had a decent go—and the spokespeople from other parties for their contributions to the debate. They have shared experiences of those they represent and broader views, and in doing so, they have been clear about the deep sense of injustice and harm felt by many businesses that were affected by these issues—I know of the same in my own postbag.
Not least because of the correspondence I have had and what we have heard today, I recognise that some businesses remain deeply dissatisfied with the operation of the original redress scheme and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. Although there have been a number of reviews and pieces of litigation, as I will come to later, the main redress scheme for IRHP resulted in over £2 billion paid in total to thousands of affected businesses.
It was undeniably unsatisfactory that the overall response to these issues has been piecemeal and complex, and the process was very often slow and frustrating to deal with. However, I am told that the IRHP redress scheme was conceived as a means of providing redress within the legal and regulatory constraints of the time. That time was more than 10 years ago, and some instances of the subject matter that we are discussing today go back around 25 years.
Clearly, I was not part of the Treasury in 2012, nor were Labour in government—the party of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), were in government for the last 14 years—so I want to set out the current Government’s understanding of the framework within which decisions about the redress scheme were taken at the time. The constraints, in so far as they concern regulatory oversight, reflect the constitutional settlement that underpins the UK’s regulatory system, with which I know hon. Members are familiar.
I would imagine that we would all wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green that regulators should at all times act with integrity and independence. Indeed, partly with that point in mind, I say that the Treasury does not have the power to direct the FCA to intervene in individual cases or to investigate matters that fell outside the regulatory perimeter that applied at the time—I am not sure that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is asking the Treasury to do at this point in any event.
The Treasury also does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own. I am sure hon. Members are aware that the independence of the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service is fundamental to our constitutional settlement. The separation between the Treasury and the wider regulatory authorities is not a technicality; it is, in theory, a safeguard for businesses and for consumers.
I acknowledge the argument that the Government should act independently of the regulator and the regulatory system and look again at this issue with fresh eyes using their own statutory powers. Given the many reviews of these issues, the independent and broad-based redress schemes over more than a decade, the successful prosecutions, convictions, judicial reviews, and other investigations, the question that the current Government must ask is whether steps to reopen these issues now will lead to better or different outcomes, and, importantly, more redress for those affected.
There are questions as to whether this Government would have made the same decisions if confronted with the same problems as the previous one—and if our decisions would have been different or indeed more or less effective. Without prejudice to the gaze of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am sure that most of us would like to think not only that might we have dealt with the situation rather better, but that in a best-case scenario regulation and supervision would have been designed such that none of these issues would have arisen in the first place. That goes right to the root of why we are all here today, and indeed critical regulatory changes were made following this scandal. However, this Government inherited a set of decisions, conclusions, judicial findings, judgments and levels of compensation that were delivered some time ago.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford, a consistent champion of his constituents whose specific points I will come to shortly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who articulated Catherine and Nigel’s heartbreaking story very well, have spoken about hidden credit lines or contingent obligations. Those are clearly very serious allegations, and it is right that they are treated seriously. For the reasons I have set out, where issues relate to the conduct of regulatory firms, they are for the FCA to consider using its statutory powers, evidence base and judgment—with that judgment being independent, again for the reasons that I have set out.
In the light of the independence that we have been discussing, I should say that the FCA firmly refutes the claims made in the BankConfidential report—which I have here—about the nature and impact of the credit lines that we have been discussing. It also refutes the allegations of collusion and regulatory failure which have been referred to today.
With reference to the independence of the courts, in a series of cases, the courts have made findings in relation to disclosure, and Jonathan Swift KC referenced those findings as settled legal context, concluding that the FCA acted lawfully in defining the scope of the IRHP redress scheme. It is true that past regulatory reviews were conducted within the scope of the powers available to the regulator at that time and within the regulatory perimeter that Parliament had set. It is of critical importance that the wider regulatory framework has now changed.
However, before I come to that, I want to address the previous redress scheme in more detail. I recognise that many of those represented here remain deeply dissatisfied with how that scheme operated and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. I do not intend to in any sense minimise or underplay any of that frustration, which is clearly very strongly felt. While I understand that the process at the time regarding that redress scheme was slow and sometimes no doubt deeply frustrating, it was established with the intention of delivering redress within the legal and regulatory constraints that applied at that time. One such constraint related to tailored business loans. Most business lending fell outside the scope of the FCA and therefore beyond its powers to compel redress. We cannot extend regulation retrospectively. Indeed, even outwith these current issues, reopening past decisions would create significant legal uncertainty and risk that could affect the availability and cost of finance for SMEs today.
Although I appreciate it is known by those here, I should note that subsequent reviews, and ultimately the courts, considered whether the regulator had acted lawfully in setting the scope and perimeter of that scheme, and concluded that it did. I mention that because it is an important consideration in any assertion that it is for the current Government to seek to reopen these issues.
I referred to a different regulatory environment from that existing now. I will briefly explain why our regulatory landscape is now better. Since 2019, the vast majority of SMEs, around 99%, have been able to bring complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service. That was a direct response to the gaps exposed by earlier scandals, including those we have talked about today. The ombudsman now provides a far wider safety net for small and medium-sized businesses than existed during the period under discussion.
In addition, the senior managers and certification regime has transformed accountability in financial services. Senior individuals can now be held personally responsible for the way that firms treat SME customers, whether activity is regulated or unregulated. That cultural shift, which stems from both of those, is profound. It did not exist during the years that Members have understandably focused on today.
Today’s debate, like other parliamentary activity on the same topic over a long period, some of which I have reviewed for this debate, has highlighted the serious and clear injustices that some businesses suffered and the impact that had. The current Government obviously cannot undo the harm that has already occurred, more is the pity, but nor can we, or should we, override independent decisions taken by the courts within the legal framework that applied at the time.
I want to address this directly, hard as it may be to hear. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington wishes me to commit today to opening a full judge-led public inquiry into these issues. I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of the matters we have discussed today, but the Government do not believe that a full public inquiry would be the right course to take. I say that with reference both to the long history of reviews, prosecutions, redress schemes and judicial reviews, which would all require unpicking to some degree, and importantly, to the changes to the regulatory landscape that were made subsequently, as a result of the gaps that this scandal exposed.
I want to be clear that the Government are instead focused on ensuring that the regulatory landscape is fit for purpose and on supporting SMEs to grow with confidence, improving their access to finance and ensuring that the financial services sector operates to high standards that command trust. We are backing that commitment with real action, with record support for the British Business Bank and reforms that strengthen accountability without undermining growth.
We are committed to robust regulation to international high standards, so that we have a strong financial services sector. Those ought not to be intentions but the bedrock of the financial services system. That is why access to redress for SMEs has been widened so significantly and why accountability at the top of financial firms is now personal and enforceable. It is also why the regulatory perimeter continues to be kept under careful review, deliberately and responsibly.
The hon. Member for Strangford referred to discretionary commission arrangements.
John McDonnell
There are only a few seconds left. I have heard the Minister’s arguments. I fully agree on the independence of the FCA from Treasury, but that does not mean that we must accept the FCA as infallible. In other instances where separate organisations have made mistakes, the Government have intervened. I understand that the Minister is not convinced this morning, but will she meet the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services, so that we can take her through the report with our experts to convince her that there might be a different way forward from the one she is setting out this morning?
Lucy Rigby
My right hon. Friend has pre-empted my offer. To be direct, yes, I will come and meet his APPG to listen further. I hope I have successfully communicated this morning that the Government do believe—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Banking Services: Accessibility
Lucy Rigby Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this debate. I thank him for setting out the concerns of his constituents very well, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions: they have been powerful and in some cases very heartfelt.
It is fair to say that access to banking continues to attract significant interest from colleagues across the House. The hon. Member is right that that interest is increasing. He referred to his own experience of the trajectory of this issue, and I agree: I am seeing hon. Members raising this issue in the House with increased salience, which I am sure reflects how our constituents feel. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken the time to share their experiences and those of their constituents.
Some hon. Members who spoke in this debate have attended my banking hub surgeries, which I hope the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), found valuable. The fact that I hold those surgeries, which Members of Parliament from any party can attend, demonstrates that the issue is being raised more and more by Members across the House.
I recognise that rural and coastal communities such as those in the constituencies of the hon. Member for St Ives and of the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) face particular challenges in accessing banking services. I very much appreciate the fact that in many circumstances local geography and transport may make it more difficult for elderly and disabled people, as well as those who are vulnerable or digitally excluded, to reach face-to-face banking when branch provision changes locally.
The hon. Member for St Ives mentioned services in his constituency being provided in an upstairs setting. I will come on to address accessibility issues, but I was sorry to hear that example. On transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) raised concerns about travel times, which I will also address. Many points have been raised, and I will do my level best to address them all.
The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), rightly referred to the fact that the banking landscape has changed in recent years. Many people have greatly benefited from digital innovations that allow them to manage their finances more easily. For many, those changes have increased accessibility and convenience. Many of us are able to access banking services just from an app on a phone. It has been clear in this debate, however, that although digital services work well for many people, others still want, need or prefer to access banking in person or use cash in their daily lives. That includes some older customers, people who are more vulnerable, or those—as with the family member of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray)—who have been through a significant life event. Being vulnerable at that point, they may just want to speak to another human.
This Government are on the side of each of those categories of people. We recognise that cash remains important for people and businesses right across the country. That is why we have been clear that, alongside digital innovation, it is critical that people have access to the services that they need. Hon. Members know that access to cash is protected in legislation and the FCA has responsibility and powers to ensure that people and businesses can continue to withdraw and deposit cash.
I want to address the serious concerns that have been raised by hon. Members about the impact of bank branch closures on our communities. In particular, the hon. Member for St Ives articulated his concerns about the closure of a Lloyds branch in Penzance. I fully understand his concerns about that situation. The Government understand the importance of those services, and there are other similar instances across the country. Banking services and other services must reflect customer and community interest.
I welcome the fact that some banks have made commitments to maintaining or improving their existing branches, because they recognise just how important they are to their customers. Nationwide Building Society has committed to maintaining 605 branches until at least 2030 and HSBC UK has committed to keeping 327 branches open until at least 2027; we very much welcome those important commitments. I also draw attention to the fact that, according to the Building Societies Association, 35% of the branch network is currently provided by building societies. As a Government, we fully support and value the role that mutuals play in our economy and society.
Branch access is an important feature for a number of customers. Many have used the free current account switching service to change provider. The switching service ensures that all payments and balances are automatically transferred to a new account, but for those firms that are changing their branch network, there are rules and obligations. In those circumstances, it is important that all Members know that decisions to close branches must be taken with regard to their impact on customers and communities. The FCA’s branch closure guidance is very clear that firms must carefully assess the effect of a planned closure on customers’ everyday banking and cash access needs.
Let me underline that point: it is very important, not least because of some of the contributions to today’s debate. Banks are expected to put appropriate alternatives in place. Where they fall short of those expectations, the FCA can and will ask for closures to be paused and I fully support those FCA powers. As a Government, we expect the FCA to use them where they consider it necessary to do so. Crucially, we also believe it is right that no branch can close until any recommended services are put in place.
Andrew George
At the end of the day, the issue is that the FCA and Link primarily undertake an assessment of access to cash, and not to the full range of banking services. The Minister says that adequate alternatives are in place. Of course, the banks will no doubt attempt to put some facade in place to satisfy that requirement—as she notes, I am unimpressed by the case in Penzance—but fundamentally, the test is access to cash, and that is insufficient. Surely that measure needs to be significantly widened.
Lucy Rigby
I appreciate that there is a difference between access to cash and access to banking services; I will come on to the latter, if the hon. Member will give me a moment.
The Government wholeheartedly recognise the importance of banking services to local communities; that recognition underpins our manifesto commitment to support industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across this country by the end of this Parliament. I think I am right to say that the hon. Member attended the opening of a banking hub in Helston in his constituency.
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.
Andrew George
I want to make sure that the Minister understands that I was simply describing what the community banker working on behalf of Lloyds was providing. I was referring to the Lloyds replacement for the closed branch, not a banking hub.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
I remind the hon. Member that he will have time to wind up at the end. Perhaps the Minister could start to conclude her remarks.
Lucy Rigby
On that cue, I will skip further ahead in my speech. I was going to talk about all the services that are available at banking hubs, which the industry is working hard to increase. Customers can now open accounts, change names and addresses, register complaints or receive help with online and telephone banking. I have met the industry on a number of occasions and I would like to put on record that we are working to try and make sure that the services provided at banking hubs meet the needs of communities. Fraud and scams were mentioned; they are concerns that the Government are thinking about.
Let me cut to the chase and answer many of the questions that have been raised. Despite everything that I have said about the importance of banking hubs and our manifesto commitment to open 350 of them, it would be premature to conclude that all communities are consistently receiving sufficient support for their banking needs. That has been clear from the contributions of hon. Members in this debate. In direct response to one question was raised by the hon. Member for St Ives—a point that was also well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams)—that is why, as might be expected, we are keeping any need to go further, including on access to banking services, under close review.
There is much more I could say about the health of our high streets, digital and financial inclusion, and alternative options to banking services, but in the light of the time and your strong cue, Mr Western, I will wrap up there.
Credit Union Common Bond Reform
Lucy Rigby Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
Credit unions play a vital role in promoting financial inclusion and providing affordable financial services to communities across the country. However, the current common bond framework in Great Britain presents barriers to sustainable growth, expansion and merger activity in the sector. The Government are committed to addressing these barriers while preserving the community-focused ethos that makes credit unions distinctive.
In November 2025, as part of the financial inclusion strategy1, the Government confirmed their intention to bring forward a package of growth-focused reforms to the common bond in Great Britain. This followed a call for evidence on the common bond, launched by the Chancellor at Mansion House in 2024, as part of the Government’s commitment to double the size of the mutuals sector.
The Government are today announcing the following changes that seek to remove barriers to the growth of the credit union sector in Great Britain. When parliamentary time allows, the Government will legislate to:
Increase the potential membership cap on the locality bond from 3 million to 10 million. This will significantly expand the potential size of locality-based credit unions, which make up 79% of the sector, and reduce uncertainty regarding mergers;
Allow credit unions to permit students to join locality-based credit unions, in addition to those who reside or work in the geographical area;
Allow credit unions to admit members’ relatives into a credit union regardless of whether they live in the same household as the qualifying member, as well as individuals who live in the same household as the qualifying member. This will better reflect modern family dynamics and broaden the membership base; and
Allow credit unions to retain members of occupation and employer bonds as fully qualifying members upon retirement, including allowing retirees to join a credit union after retirement has begun. This will also apply to locality bonds where members are eligible based on employment within the locality.
These reforms will help credit unions grow sustainably so that more people across the UK can access affordable, community-based financial services.
This announcement complements broader work to support credit unions, including the Prudential Regulation Authority’s policy statement on credit union service organisations2, the £30 million credit union transformation fund for England announced as part of the financial inclusion strategy and led by Fair4AllFinance, and the FCA and PRA’s planned review of the regulatory framework for credit unions, as set out in the mutuals landscape report published on 5 December 2025.3
These reforms also form part of the Government’s work on our manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutuals sector, in partnership with the sector.
The full call for evidence response describing these reforms in detail is published on gov.uk:
https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/credit-union-common-bond-reform
1 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6909ed8db04a520c5051843f/Financial_Inclusion_Report.pdf
2 https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2026/february/credit-union-service-organisations-policy-statement
3 https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/publication/2025/december/mutuals-landscape-report-2025.pdf
[HCWS1418]
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Lucy Rigby ExcerptsWednesday 11th March 2026
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2026 View all Finance Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Report Stage Amendments as at 11 March 2026 - (11 Mar 2026)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Budget in November was a Budget to build a stronger, more secure economy. It contained fair and necessary choices to deliver the public’s priorities by cutting the cost of living, cutting debt and borrowing, cutting child poverty, and cutting NHS waiting lists. At its heart were three deliberate pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability and getting inflation and interest rates down, we gave businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we protected over £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing British companies of the future, we supported the investment, the innovation and the economic dynamism that will increase growth, raise living standards, and boost the country’s prosperity in the next decade and beyond. The measures in the Bill deliver on those choices by introducing tax levers to unlock investment, back our wealth creators and attract talent by sticking to commitments in the corporate tax road map to provide certainty for businesses, and by doubling the limits for our enterprise tax incentives so that scale-ups can attract the capital and talent that they need in order to grow.
The Bill contains a series of other responsible decisions on tax, and that is because, at the time of the Budget, the Government faced choices. We could have made the reckless choice to abandon our fiscal rules and let borrowing and debt increase, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to get borrowing, debt and inflation down, more than doubling our headroom. We could have made the irresponsible choice and returned to austerity, cutting public services as the Conservative party did and undermining capital investment, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to protect the investment in Britain’s infrastructure and to build a better, stronger, more secure economy.
In line with our commitment to fiscal responsibility, the Bill maintains income tax thresholds for employees and the self-employed at the current levels for a further three years, from April 2028 until April 2031. It also contains measures to strengthen the integrity of the tax system by closing loopholes and removing barriers. That includes reforms to collect more unpaid taxes and to modernise the tax system to make it easier for taxpayers to get their tax right first time. We are introducing new powers to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance, and to challenge those who knowingly engage in fraudulent business in the construction industry. Alongside the measures announced in the 2024 Budget, the measures in the Bill to close the tax gap will bring the total revenue from tax gap measures announced in this Parliament to £10 billion in 2029-30.
I wholeheartedly thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for their contributions during the Bill’s passage. The Bill contains the right choices for the public finances, the right choices on investment, the right choices for businesses and for working people, the right choices for our public services, and the right choices for Britain. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Lucy Rigby Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
We became inured to the presence of food banks under Tory Governments over the last 14 years, but we should always remember that despite the incredible work done by those who run them, food banks should not need to exist, and this Government are committed to ending mass dependence on food parcels. That is why we have extended free school meals to children in families receiving universal credit and removed the two-child limit, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and—according to the Trussell Trust, as the Chancellor said earlier—will significantly reduce the number of families using food banks.
Catherine West
Does the Minister agree that everyone—including financial institutions such as the mutual sector, which often outperforms the private banking sector in access to finance and branch closure issues—needs to play their part in helping families and households at this critical juncture?
Lucy Rigby
As my hon. Friend knows, we are a strong supporter of the mutual sector, for exactly the reasons that she has given. As part of our financial inclusion strategy, we are backing the sector with initiatives such as the new £30 million credit union transformation fund and reform of the common bond, which I look forward to introducing shortly.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the food banks, not only in my constituency but across the United Kingdom, in stepping up to plug gaps for families? Does she accept that urgent improvements in respect of benefit transitions and deductions are needed to prevent households from being pushed abruptly into crisis?
Lucy Rigby
As I have said, food banks should not need to exist, which is why this Government are committed to ending mass dependence on food parcels. I have also mentioned the importance of lifting the two-child limit on universal credit, which will result in the largest expected reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament since records began.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work of Co-operative Care Colne Valley, which is an excellent example of how co-operatives can deliver high-quality community-owned care for elderly and disabled people. His constituency is home to a number of other fantastic co-operatives, including the Green Valley Grocer and the Handmade Bakery. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the co-ops and mutuals sector, exactly because we recognise the very positive role that it plays.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Lucy Rigby
I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about the Government’s priority to get more first-time buyers on to the housing ladder. As he and I have discussed before, people looking to buy a home can build their credit history through rent payments by using third-party services that report these things to credit reference agencies. I think that he and I would agree that better awareness of such services and the mortgages available that take account of tenants’ rental payments would be a good thing.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities
Lucy Rigby Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
In my very best Welsh, I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies)—she is smiling, which makes me think that I may have got that pronunciation ever so slightly wrong—for securing the debate. It is clearly an important topic to her, given the passionate way that she spoke, and to Members, given the number of interventions. I know from my experience, not least in Treasury orals, the correspondence that I get, and the banking hub surgeries that I run in Parliament, how important this issue is to Members right across the House, so I thank her again for securing this very important debate. I also thank those who have made interventions thus far, including the hon. Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Conservative Government passed the Financial Services and Markets Act in 2023, which gave the FCA powers to set up banking hubs and give access to cash. Does the Minister think that that was a missed opportunity at the time to prevent banks from closing high street branches in the thousands, as they have since continued to do?
Lucy Rigby
If the hon. Member would let me progress just a little further, I will cover the issues he refers to.
As I said, the strength of feeling expressed today, and more broadly in parliamentary interactions, shows just how important this issue is to Members, and to people right across the country, particularly in the types of communities that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin represents. I recognise the particular concerns about rural and post-industrial areas, where longer travel distances, which were referred to, more limited transport and, in particular, uneven digital connectivity make the loss of a bank branch especially acute.
It is right to acknowledge that banking has changed very dramatically in recent years. Many customers have benefited from digital innovations that allow them to more easily manage their finances. For those who have benefited, those types of innovations have increased accessibility and convenience.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Minister mentions the need to recognise innovations. At the same time, we have to recognise that organisations such as banks, and also the Post Office, are very much inclined to be self-interested. In my own constituency a year ago, we lost 21 out of 25 locations for vans. The Government surely need to intervene to make sure that remote and left-behind communities are not left even further behind because these large financial organisations are looking after their own interests.
Lucy Rigby
I was going through some of the changes in the landscape of banking, and will come to a slightly more negative aspect of that, if the right hon. Member will allow me to do so. I hope that will cover the substance of her question.
The most recent data from the Financial Conduct Authority shows that over nine in 10 adults banked online or used a mobile app in 2024. We also know, alongside the statistics on digital innovations that I just referred to, that around a quarter of adults carried out banking face-to-face in a branch over the same period. I put that alongside the statistics that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin referred to about cash usage, which I will not repeat. I make no judgment about why I am a little old school on occasion with my attachment to cash, as she put it, but we know that many of those who still rely on in-person services are older customers and more vulnerable individuals. We also know that many businesses right across this country continue to depend on cash.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
In my constituency, we have faced exactly the issues that the Minister highlights, and I am grateful for the work on this, in particular, on the needs of elderly people, which is being investigated by the Government, and those who are elderly and possibly frail, who find it difficult to travel on public transport. One of the issues we have faced is a lack of access to immediate parking and support for elderly people to get in and out of branches.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Will the Minister take another intervention on that point?
Douglas McAllister
Alexandria is one of many post-industrial communities within my constituency, and the Bank of Scotland recently announced the closure of the town’s last remaining bank, but as a result the new Alexandria banking hub opened in my constituency in November 2025, which is a very welcome addition to the high street. Does the Minister agree that that ensures crucial access to cash and face-to face-banking services for businesses and residents, especially the elderly and vulnerable, in Alexandria in West Dunbartonshire, and adds to our high street work with the Pride in Place scheme?
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend raises very important issues, including in relation to Pride in Place. What is so important about this debate and about banking hubs is that there is an interaction between access to cash, and the ability to speak to a bank or a community banker, and the health of our high streets and how people feel about their towns and communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Lucy Rigby
I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack).
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
My constituency, including the main town of Coalville, has a strong industrial past. Coalville is not entirely rural, so it does not qualify for a banking hub. Lloyds is abandoning my community and will close a branch in Coalville in June, despite how busy and well used that branch, on a main high street, is. Does she agree that we need to ensure that gaps in bank provision are filled as soon as possible with banking hubs, and that banking hub assessment should include access to business banking, because that is what we really lose when a main high street bank goes off the high street?
Lucy Rigby
The House will forgive me for not commenting on individual cases, but it is safe to say that I am familiar with the circumstances that my hon. Friend refers to, and I know the urgent nature of some of the issues that she—
Lucy Rigby
I will give way first to the right hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend.
Sir John Hayes
The Library has made it clear that many groups beyond the elderly and the disadvantaged, including people with mental health difficulties, people with physical difficulties and people who rely on others to pay bills for them, struggle with these issues, and they struggle all the more in rural areas like Lincolnshire. That is why 98% of MPs surveyed have said that they think there should be a banking hub wherever the last branch has closed. When 98% of MPs think something, a wise Government listen carefully and act quickly.
Lucy Rigby
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman gives me good advice and, as ever, I shall pay close attention to what he says. He rightly refers to different aspects of vulnerability and I will come on to some of those slightly later in my remarks. What is clear from the interventions that we have just had is, again, how passionately Members from right across the House feel about these issues, which is why the Government have been clear that it is critical that people have access to the services they need.
Torcuil Crichton
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. To echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), I have come to Westminster Hall today following discussions with Lloyds Bank, which has decided to close the Benbecula branch of the Bank of Scotland in my constituency; there have now been two bank closures in my constituency in a few short years. That closure decision appears to be as irreversible as it is regrettable, but the danger now is that we will have no banking hub, because the banking population of Uist is too small to fit within the parameters of one. Will the Minister ensure that the banks, Link and associated authorities expand and adjust their parameters, so that sparsely populated areas and island populations continue to have access to banking services?
David Smith
The Minister has been very generous. On the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton), similarly in Alnwick and Berwick, in my constituency, there is an issue to do with the diminution of high street banking. Only three years ago, there were three banks in Alnwick and now there are none, and one bank is now closing in Berwick. Regarding the criteria for community banking, will the Government look at Link and other such services, and say that it is not just access to cash that should be a statutory right but access to banking?
Lucy Rigby
I can answer that very directly. We keep these issues under review, as my hon. Friend would expect. Prior to those interventions, I was talking about action that the Government have taken. Our recognition of the importance of banking services to local communities underpins what we put in our manifesto, which was a pledge to work with the industry, as the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin rightly said, to get to at least 350 banking hubs across the country.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for being exceptionally generous with her time. I want to emphasise the point on banking hubs. I have been particularly frustrated about the town of Haltwhistle in my constituency. It is a smaller town but has a huge area that looks to it, going from Slaggyford and Gilsland up to communities nearer the Scottish border. On the current criteria, it is too small to attract a banking hub by itself, but the businesses that look to it are now forced to look to Hexham or, further afield, to Newcastle, or indeed to the west of Carlisle. That risks strangling the growth of economic enterprise in the west of Northumberland, which is already, I must say, very poorly supported by Northumberland county council.
Lucy Rigby
My hon. Friend sums up very well the links between some of the issues that we are discussing today and wider economic growth, which, as Members will know, is the Government’s principal mission.
Any hope that I might have had of reciting the names of the constituencies of Members who have contributed to the debate is fast evaporating. What I will say, on our 350 banking hubs in the course of this Parliament, is that it is important to note that that is a floor rather than a ceiling, so it is entirely possible that the 350 target will be surpassed. More than 270 hubs have already been announced, and more than 210 are now open. In Wales specifically, 17 banking hubs have been announced and 12 of them are already open.
Banking hubs do not just provide assisted cash services through post office staff and allow customers to withdraw and deposit cash. They also of course, as Members will know, provide community bankers from customers’ banks, offering customers the opportunity to speak to someone face to face about their banking needs, as they would in a traditional bank branch. I was in the banking hub in Warwick just last week and was able to meet community bankers and customers who were coming in. I saw at first hand the important benefit that having someone there whom people were able to engage with brought to those who were coming in.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity. I agree wholeheartedly that it is important that these hubs offer that wider range of banking services, and I draw her attention to the plight of community bank account holders, who often need to have access to a service that currently is available only in a bank branch, but could be provided in a banking hub in the future.
Lucy Rigby
The hon. Member makes a strong point. I am rapidly cutting bits out of my speech, but I will cover as much as I can. Members will know that some hubs offer services that others do not. We have been exploring with the banks how services might be expanded and improved where there is a community need for that to happen. Just last month, I held a roundtable with a large number of banks, Cash Access UK and UK Finance to discuss the services currently provided in banking hubs, including access to printing facilities, which we know are really valued in some communities. Saturday opening hours are another example of the things that were discussed. Overall, that discussion with the banks was about how we improve the functionality of hubs. We also discussed what the industry might be able to do to raise awareness of the location of hubs—which we know in some areas is not as high as it might be—alongside awareness of the services that they offer their customers.
I want to spend a second addressing the important points raised about digital exclusion and particular vulnerabilities. Although many people benefit from digital services, the Government of course recognise—this is inherent in the financial inclusion strategy that we published at the end of last year—that many people face real barriers. That is exactly why digital inclusion sat alongside access to banking as a core pillar of the strategy.
The financial inclusion strategy includes an industry-led working group on inclusive design to improve accessibility right across financial products—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Attorney General’s Office
Lucy Rigby Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Rigby
As I noted, recovering ill-gotten gains and returning money to victims and the taxpayer is a crucial part of the SFO’s role. It is highly skilled at recovering funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: it recovered £160 million between March 2021 and March 2024.
[Official Report, 3 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 115WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby):
Lucy Rigby
As I noted, recovering ill-gotten gains and returning money to victims and the taxpayer is a crucial part of the SFO’s role. It is highly skilled at recovering funds under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: it recovered £145,787,440.40 between 1 April 2021 and 31 March 2024.