Rail Freight

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart]

I agree on the importance of rail freight infrastructure. It really matters that the lines are in place and able to be used. I will talk about capacity and the importance of having dedicated rail paths for freight. I do not know the line the hon. Lady mentions, but perhaps I can visit her beautiful part of the world on my summer holidays.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is being extremely generous with her time. In Reading, which is in the same rail region as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), there is an excellent example of where co-ordination between track and train is already emerging in freight. It is offering great benefits to passengers and taking vehicles off the road, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned is happening in the north-west.

[Lisa Smart]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the positive impact that good rail freight infrastructure can have on passengers. We should not look at the two as separate entities; they work together and use some of the same infrastructure. More rail freight means fewer wagons on the road, so it is better for all passengers, whether in cars, wagons or on the railway.

As has been shown, this goes beyond my local area. Rail freight prevents 7 million HGV journeys every year across our nation, according to the Rail Freight Group. That means less wear on our roads, because HGVs cause disproportionately more damage to road surfaces than any other vehicle. The cost of that falls on all of us as taxpayers. It also means less congestion on already overstretched routes, resulting in cleaner air in the towns and villages that lorries would otherwise have passed through.

Rail freight can deliver real benefits to real communities, and we are still not using it nearly enough. According to independent research by Deloitte, rail freight currently contributes £2.5 billion in economic and social value to the country each year. Yet, according to the Rail Freight Group, the UK moves only about 7% of its freight by rail, which is less than half of the European average of 19%.

Rural Roads

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Anderson]

We see that across South Shropshire. My hon. Friend’s mother-in-law is a lovely lady and I was delighted to meet her the other week—I get a few points for that. We are finding that Shropshire council is putting cones in the potholes, because they are that big, or putting up traffic lights, and some of the traffic lights are not working. Those have now been up for weeks, and sometimes several months. That is causing an issue, when it is easier to fix the potholes.

There have been a lot of short-term fixes, and we need a longer-term strategy. I set up a survey in my constituency, and 500 people responded in a very short period of time. One in four have experienced vehicle damage, nearly 90% have had a near miss, and 98% said that the roads are in poor or very poor condition. I would love to meet that 2% and see where they are travelling.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing today’s important debate; thousands of residents around the country, maybe hundreds of thousands, will be very grateful for his work. Does he believe that part of the issue is the way that local authorities manage their resurfacing programmes? In our area, unfortunately, Oxfordshire is full of incredibly deep potholes—well below the depth at which other local authorities would intervene—and my Reading residents often cross the boundary and are shocked by the state of the roads. In contrast, our local authority has resurfaced large sections of roads, and this invest-to-save approach has resulted in a better quality of road surface and fewer potholes.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. There is not one specific issue here; there are multiple issues, as I will come to.

Constituents have talked about the road just outside Ackleton. They tell me it is like driving in a third-world country. A local resident, Barry, commented to me, “You want to come to Claverley, mate. It’s like driving on the moon.” I have been there—Claverley, not the moon—and he is not wrong. From Bridgnorth to Bishop’s Castle, and from Broseley to Ludlow, the whole of South Shropshire is suffering from the poor state of the roads. The roads around Ditton Priors, in particular, are impassable in multiple areas.

I thank the local press for their great reporting on the issues in Church Preen. I took BBC Shropshire’s Rob Trigg there to see some of the worst roads in Shropshire—he was truly shocked by the state of them—and to meet local residents. The roads are actually damaging tractor tyres in that area. It is a major issue.

Let me turn to the cost of vehicle repair, before we get on to potholes and the solutions. More than two thirds of my residents travel to work on the roads. There is a limited rail line, which goes north to south, and only impacts a few people. I live a mile-plus from the nearest bus station, and there are limited buses. More than 27,000 of my constituents travel to work on South Shropshire’s roads every day. The reason this is such a big issue in rural areas is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) mentioned, the number of roads and the distance to travel. One constituent has had a car for 18 months. It was a new car, but it is on its third windscreen and has just recently had a tyre puncture after being damaged on local roads. I have personally replaced two tyres and one wheel on the roads around South Shropshire.

Those issues are not unique. Last year, an astonishing £645 million was spent on repairing vehicles damaged by potholes. That is up from £579 million, and it was £474 million in 2023. Those costs are being borne by all our constituents day in, day out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood]

The funding formula for local roads maintenance has not changed under this Government, and all local authorities, urban and rural, are receiving additional funding—an additional £500 million for local roads maintenance this year—as part of the largest uplift to the highways maintenance block in England’s history. Over the next four years, we are delivering a record £7.3 billion funding package, giving local authorities the long-term certainty they have asked for time and again. This is not a one-off: it is a sustained shift in how we fund roads, designed to empower councils to move from reactive repairs to genuinely strategic network management.

[Matt Rodda]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lilian Greenwood]

Not right now. The Transport Committee in the previous Parliament specifically asked for that change.

We are also making sure that taxpayers know how money is being used. Every local highway authority is now required to publish clear, accessible information on the condition of its roads, its maintenance plans and how it is investing the uplift it has received. That goes precisely to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) on accountability.

The transparency reports help residents to understand what is being delivered, and ensure that authorities remain accountable for the outcomes they achieve. The reports are a tool for public confidence and a driver of improvement, and there are already encouraging signs. Last year, for the first time since 2017, the proportion of local roads receiving maintenance treatment increased.

Alongside better reporting, we are updating the well-managed highway infrastructure code of practice, which is the cornerstone guidance for risk-based asset management. We want to ensure that it reflects new technologies, climate adaptation needs and modern expectations of highway resilience. The UK Roads Leadership Group and industry experts are leading the comprehensive refresh. We are working with AtkinsRéalis, which has 20 representatives in the World Road Association, so I hope we are learning from the international best practice raised by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover). We expect the new guidance to be issued later this year.

The focus on improving guidance goes hand in hand with strengthening the capability of the sector. Last summer, we provided funding for the UK Roads Leadership Group to deliver a programme of climate resilience workshops for local highways authorities. The sessions brought together practitioners and experts to strengthen emergency response and to improve preparedness for the increasingly severe weather and climate-driven hazards we face, supporting our wider climate adaptation strategy for transport, which was published in December.

As we improve resilience, we are also helping councils to adopt new and innovative approaches to managing their networks. Rural authorities are directly benefiting from the Government’s £30 million Live Labs 2 programme, which tests new ways to decarbonise local highways. Maintenance projects include a Devon county council scheme that is using the A382 upgrade to trial new materials, digital technology and working practices to cut emissions across construction and operations. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, I have seen for myself how teams are exploring low-carbon street-lighting alternatives such as solar-powered studs and highly reflective markings, to reduce reliance on traditional lighting on rural routes.

Similarly, I have seen local authorities across the country using new machinery and new technology to improve the quality of their road repairs. In West Sussex and South Gloucestershire, the Greenprint project is developing and testing sustainable construction materials with direct application to mixed rural networks.

To conclude, this Government will continue to stand behind rural communities and the councils that serve them. We will continue to invest at record levels and to support local authorities to improve and maintain their roads, so that every rural resident, no matter where they live, benefits from a network that is safer, stronger and built for the future.

Middle East: Economic Update

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

Almost every household uses electricity to turn on the lights. They will benefit from some of the changes that will come in on 1 April. Some 4% of households in Great Britain, and more than 60% in Northern Ireland, rely on heating oil. We recognise the unique situation here. The increase in the price in the past few days does not reflect market conditions, which is why we have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to look urgently at extortionate prices. We are also ensuring that supply remains stable. Enough heating oil is available, and we do not want people to be priced out of it.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and thank her for her work to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Will she say a little more about her long-term work to increase grid capacity and change the planning system to help invest in new nuclear and solar?

[Rachel Reeves]

We made changes to the national policy planning framework a few days into this Government, and at the end of last year we passed the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which makes it easier to build a range of infrastructure from housing to data centres and, crucially, energy infrastructure. That Act was opposed by the Opposition parties, who need to explain why they are against building the grid connections that will help us to benefit from cheaper energy.

Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

This Budget will lift thousands of children in Scotland out of poverty, because of decisions that we have made. This Government have made £10 billion more spending available to the Scottish Government, yet we still see public services failing up and down Scotland; the NHS is not working as well as it should north of the border.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The Minister is making an excellent series of points, and I commend him on behalf of 4,000 vulnerable children in Reading for the fantastic support he is offering them and their families. It is much deserved and appreciated by our community. I point out other significant benefits, such as the freezing of rail fares, continued bus fare subsidies, and economic measures that will drive growth across this country.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—the first from a Labour Member. I look forward to many more from Labour hon. Friends, as well as Opposition Members. This Government have also chosen to cut Government borrowing every year, so that interest rates, already cut five times since the election, keep falling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituents and the businesses based in his part of the world. Those businesses contribute significant revenue to the Exchequer, and this Government are asking them to contribute a bit more in order for us to be able to continue to fund our public services in a sustainable way. I will continue to have conversations with him and others about the impact of the changes that the Government are announcing to this sector and others in the Budget and this Bill.

Alongside the choices I have mentioned, we are also taking action on the loan charge review. That will include accepting all but one of the recommendations of the independent review, and in some places going further than the review suggested. We are creating a new settlement opportunity to support those with outstanding liabilities to resolve their affairs with HMRC. This marks the start of a final opportunity to draw a line under this long-running issue. I sincerely and dearly hope for everyone involved that we will be able to move forward and that this issue can start to be part of people’s pasts, rather than a seemingly never-ending part of their future.

In tandem, we are delivering a package of measures to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance and help taxpayers to steer clear of the schemes that they promote. Those measures include a new prohibition on promoting avoidance arrangements that have no realistic prospect of success and new promoter action notices to require businesses to stop providing goods or services to promoters of tax avoidance where they are used in the promotion of avoidance.

[Matt Rodda]

The Minister is making an excellent point. May I commend him on his work on the loan charge? Many IT consultants in my constituency and across the Thames valley are grateful to the Treasury for looking into this matter. Many of them felt they were sold schemes that they did not always fully understand, and they are also grateful for the action to tackle inappropriate schemes being marketed at professional people. I thank him for his work on this matter.

[Dan Tomlinson]

That is very kind of my hon. Friend. I know that he and others on all sides of the House have made representations over many years on behalf of their constituents affected by the loan charge. I have met some of those affected and members of the all-party parliamentary group. In the months that I have been in this role, having been appointed only on 1 September, I have worked hard to ensure that we come forward with proposals that I hope will help to draw a line under this issue. I hope that those affected can see we have a reasonable and fair set of proposals that will help those who were subject to the loan charge to be able to come forward and to settle; I really encourage those individuals to come forward.

Alongside those changes, we are making steps to continue to close the tax gap by closing loopholes and removing barriers to ensure that people pay the tax that they owe, including raising an additional £2.4 billion in ’29-30 by introducing further reforms to pursue those who bend or break the rules to collect more unpaid taxes. We are also going to modernise the tax system to make it easier for taxpayers to get their tax right the first time. With the choices delivered in this Finance Bill, that will bring the total additional revenue raised by closing the tax gap in this Parliament to £10 billion by 2029-30.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has spoken about this Budget being

“a package, not a pick-and-mix”,

and that is so important for our public finances and our public services. Through this Bill, we are choosing to deliver long-overdue reforms to update our tax system so that it can work for a modern, dynamic and thriving economy, and funding vital policies such as the removal of the two-child limit, which will lift half a million children out of poverty.

This Bill is about delivering on choices: choices to protect working people; choices to cut energy bills, and to freeze train fares and prescription charges; choices to boost wages and reduce poverty; and choices to cut inflation to bring down mortgage costs. It delivers the Government’s commitment to this country to build a stronger and fairer economy in which living standards rise, to see child poverty fall, and to ensure that public services are improved up and down the country. With every measure in this Finance Bill being geared towards that goal, I commend this Bill to the House.

Independent Lifeboats: Government Support

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for securing today’s important debate. I also thank all those who work and volunteer in the independent lifeboat sector, as well as those who support the RNLI.

I would like to raise the issue of safety in rivers, although I pay tribute to colleagues who have raised the serious issue of safety at sea. My constituency includes a number of rivers and is densely populated. We have the River Thames, as well as the Kennet, which is one of the major tributaries, and smaller tributaries such as Holy Brook and Foudry Brook. These are all right next to large numbers of people: we have Reading festival every year, with nearly 100,000 visitors; there are people who walk along the Thameside promenade; and we have lots of boaters, and people who enjoy wild swimming and other activities on the river.

Sadly, as an inland area with a major river and some tributaries, we do not have the level of provision that we would wish. There are important services provided by the emergency services, such as Thames Valley police and Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue. However, I have been contacted by a resident asking what more could be done in our context, and whether it might be possible to empower local businesses and sports clubs to help rescue anybody who got into difficulty in the river.

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I thank him for indulging my having a second bite of the cherry, because he makes an important point. Recently, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) and I spoke in a debate about water safety education. Does he agree that we in this House should be working together to ensure that people who live in constituencies like ours have better access to water education from a young age, through our schools and the businesses that he is describing?

[Matt Rodda]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Education is a vital part of this. Where local businesses or sports clubs, such as those involved in rowing, canoeing or other activities on the river, have a supply of trained personnel available—not necessarily 24 hours a day, but certainly for large parts of the day—can the Minister look into what scope there is to support them? What more could be done to help those organisations provide a service in the first instance if they spot an emergency happening? I commend one of my constituents who did exactly that. His part-time role as a volunteer is to help ferry people to an island on the River Thames that is used by a local bowls club—it is the only bowls club in the world on an island, as far as we know. He saw somebody fall into the river and went to rescue them. I commend that type of behaviour and I believe that many more people would want to do exactly the same if they saw that happen.

In our town centre and nearby areas there are three boatyards, a number of sports clubs and other businesses with access to boats, with trained people who are familiar with handling a small boat and who might be able to rescue somebody at very short notice, before other boats could be launched. I wanted to raise that important matter with the Minister and ask whether she might be able to look into it for me.

I also want to mention the growing challenge of people living on boats that are not property registered, and where the Environment Agency and the police have concerns. I have had meetings and I commend our local councillors, the local police and the EA for their work on this matter. In and around our town centre, there are growing numbers of boats where people are living, and there is the danger of incidents related to them. In one of our meetings with these services, we heard about an incident where a boat that had a poorly maintained engine drifted towards a lock, which could have resulted in a tragedy. There have been other sad incidents where there have been problems relating to people living on a river or canal across the country, so I also wanted to raise that and ask whether the Minister has anything to add about trying to enhance safety for people who live on rivers and canals in boats and similar accommodation.

Mrs Harris, I appreciate that time is at a premium and I am certainly grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I hope the Minister will be able to answer some of these queries and I look forward to hearing more when she speaks later.

Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mohindra]

My right hon. Friend has obviously had early sight of my speech, because I was going to get on to exactly that about human interaction, but I will let colleagues hold off for a few minutes while I carry on the main body of my speech. As my right hon. Friend said, the situation is deeply desperate, but sadly, not unique to South West Herts. I know other Members in this House will be feeling similar circumstances, as one in seven constituencies across the UK have only one bank or no bank at all.

Access to cash is essential, and it is important that we retain the ability to withdraw and deposit cash to support that, particularly as that allows those who do not use online banking to keep an eye on their personal finances. The post office supports this vital service and is essential for people in my area. On average, £1.6 million is withdrawn from post offices in my constituency every month, while £3.5 million is deposited. Although the post office provides an amazing service, a banking hub in a post office gives people proper support. We must prevent the closure of post offices, many of which are now run by a single person and are not necessarily profitable. It would be a great damage to all our areas if post offices were to close too.

Although post offices such as the one in Rickmansworth have stepped up to provide greater banking services than those normally available, we cannot expect our constituents to rely on post offices to replace the banks if there is no banking hub in place, as they do not provide the same level of service. Although Rickmansworth is fortunate to have some banking services available via the post office, as well as in the Nationwide branch, since I was elected in 2019 South West Hertfordshire has lost NatWest, Barclays and Santander in Rickmansworth.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the need for in-person banking services. In my constituency, we have experienced exactly what he has described in the south-east of England. My experience is that many who are vulnerable, or overwhelmed by getting into the town centre or have mobility problems are particularly affected, and so are many small businesses that deal in cash. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment further on the need for those groups to be better served?

[Mr Mohindra]

Once again, an hon. Member has pre-empted part of my speech. As the hon. Gentleman alludes to, the issue is not specific to the south-east, but occurs across the country. I look forward to reassurance from the Minister in her speech.

The situation is worse in other parts of my constituency. Many of my residents do not have access to any banking services on their high street. That is particularly the case in Abbots Langley where, in 2021, the Barclays branch closed, leaving residents in the town and surrounding area with no access to banking services. The issue matters greatly to people in my constituency. I joined forces with our local Conservative councillors, Vicky Edwards and Ian Campbell, to support a campaign to bring a banking hub to the post office on the high street. I met with the local postmaster and Vicky and Ian recently to discuss the value that would bring to constituents.

[Mr Mohindra]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents. Part of my remarks today, and I am sure of others’ later in the debate, concerns that exact point about increasing flexibility. We must not create criteria for banking hubs that do not necessarily solve the problem; we are trying to solve access to cash and banking services for all our constituents, irrespective of where they live.

More than 1,300 residents have already signed a petition in support of our campaign in Abbots Langley for a banking hub. I continue to push hard for that to be achieved, as that area in my community would greatly benefit from a banking hub as an obvious solution to the current lack of access those residents have.

Returning to the importance of access to cash, it is essential that the key service provided by banks continues to be available to people. I appreciate that we are moving increasingly towards a cashless society. It is rare now to find a shop that does not accept card payments, or indeed accepts cash at all. The idea of carrying emergency cash may, for many of us, seem less common. As someone with a background in small business, I understand the importance of cash for small and medium-sized businesses. Although ATMs make cash available to the wider population, it is not the same as the face-to-face interaction that a banking hub provides. I am glad that the major banks have recently signed a five-year access to cash deal with the Post Office to allow free withdrawals and deposit of cash, but that is a small step compared with the need for the services that banking hubs provide.

Of small businesses, 28% use cash at least weekly, and with more than 5,500 small businesses in South West Hertfordshire, banking facilities are not a service they can go without. Ahead of the debate, I thought it was important to speak to local businesses in my area. I contacted businesses across Abbots Langley, Rickmansworth and Kings Langley for their views on banking services and the role that cash plays in their everyday business. Many of the businesses I engaged with supported banking hubs, because they regularly need to deposit cash. Business owners in Abbots Langley told me that because they have no access to banking services, they often have to travel long distances to Watford to deposit large amounts of cash, which is time-consuming and potentially unsafe. That would be solved if Abbots Langley had a banking hub.

Small business owners are not the only group affected by the digital exclusion that comes with the loss of high street banks. Nearly a third of people over the age of 65 across the UK say that they feel uncomfortable using online banking, particularly for large or delicate transactions. Some 19% of people in my constituency are over 65. Having a banking hub allows the elderly and vulnerable to feel more comfortable, because they can access and deal with their finances in person. It is great that people often feel that they can trust their postmaster. Again, this may be some of the only social interaction that many people have, and it benefits their mental health and wellbeing.

It is not just the elderly who are affected by the move towards a cashless society. I have long advocated ensuring that the infrastructure in South West Hertfordshire, including essential services such as banking, is accessible for everyone. Those with a disability or impairment are also being impacted by the move away from high street banks. In a recent survey of a group of 2,700 people who had a disability or impairment, more than half said they had been negatively impacted by bank closures. They struggle with security features, authentication checks and speaking to their bank over the phone. They are simply left with no other alternative, and should not be forced to travel to other towns, often on unreliable, infrequent public transport, simply to access their money.

More than 1 million people in the UK rely wholly on cash, and 8 million adults report that they would struggle in a completely cashless society. For the elderly and the vulnerable, the opening of local banking hubs reduces the risk of their becoming victims of financial abuse and allows them to remain independent. As I have said, post offices and the postmasters who run them are often more than just a post service. They see their regulars frequently, and will notice if someone has not been seen or does not look well. They are not healthcare professionals, but they are another set of eyes and ears that can tell how customers are doing.

The process of opening a banking hub is currently undertaken by Cash Access UK, Link and supporting banks, and I look forward to meeting with Link shortly to begin discussions about getting a banking hub in Abbots Langley. I previously discussed the process with other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who expressed concerns about the parameters that are used to determine whether an area qualifies for a banking hub.

[Matt Rodda]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about this issue. My experience is that the criteria appear to be drawn too tightly, and that there is perhaps a lack of appreciation of the scale of need in some areas. In my own area, although there is frequent public transport from the Reading suburb of Caversham to the town centre, Caversham falls 1 minute outside the minimum criterion for travel time, yet it has thousands and thousands of residents, as well as a significant older and disabled population. Surely it would be wise for Link to consider the broader context, not just travel time.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman draws me on something that is not pertinent to the amendments, but I understand why he has asked the question. When a bank fails, there is a hierarchy of creditors. I can write to him with that hierarchy, as I do not have it in my head at the moment. The hierarchy ensures that if, for example, the bank is bailed in, those who have already invested in the bank become stakeholders, although it depends on the resolution scenario and where they are in that process. The people who have deposits in the bank—in more simple language, people who have bank accounts—are protected up to £85,000. Soon that will increase in the way that the shadow Minister suggested.

Amendments 1 and 3 in the names of shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, and the hon. Member for Wokingham respectively both relate to the scope of the Bill, which has been discussed at length during the Bill’s passage through this House and in the other place. The Government’s position remains that the mechanism in the Bill is not intended to support the resolution of the largest banks. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest set that out in his speech, as did the hon. Member for Wokingham. The largest banks will continue to be required to hold MREL to self-insure against their own failure. For banks that are required to hold MREL, the Bank of England should in the first instance use those resources to recapitalise such a firm in resolution rather than resorting to the new mechanism in the Bill. It is right that shareholders and investors in the firm should bear losses before anyone else, which goes to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

I return to the primary purpose of the Bill, which is to protect the taxpayer. Bank failures are by their nature highly unpredictable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon said. In the unlikely circumstances where a top-up is needed to resolve a bank once all its MREL resources have been used, hon. Members must consider whether they want those costs to be borne by the taxpayer. It is the Government’s belief that the taxpayer should not be on the hook for those costs.

I made the point in Committee, and do so again today, that safeguards are in place to prevent inappropriate use of the mechanism. The Treasury, for example, is involved in the exercise of any resolution powers through being consulted about whether conditions for resolution have been met. It would also need to approve any resolution action with implications for public funds. If the Bank of England requested a large sum from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme that the scheme could not provide through its own resources, additional amounts would need to be borrowed from the Treasury and would therefore require the Treasury’s approval. Therefore, in practice, Treasury consent would be required if the Bank of England had requested a large sum.

The shadow Minister attempted to draw me into many different subjects related to MREL. You rightly reminded him, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the scope of the Bill and the amendments under discussion. I will always be happy to have those discussions with him—as he knows, the Bank of England recently consulted on the thresholds—and I note what he said before he was called to order. He also tried to draw me into questions about the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which are also for a different day; as he said, there will soon be increases.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

I appreciate that the Bill’s scope is limited, and the Minister is making an excellent case for the Government. I realise that bank collapses are unusual and that the Government take a range of steps to try to protect the interests of consumers, but could she write to reassure me on the related point of bank branches there were a bank collapse?

[Emma Reynolds]

Perhaps my hon. Friend and I could have a discussion outside the Chamber so that I can better understand his question. The mechanism in the Bill is about what happens when the resolution regime is triggered. Four different conditions have to be met for that to happen. The Bill seeks to continue the work that the Opposition started to take forward when they were in government before the election about what we do in cases like that of Silicon Valley Bank. In that case, there was not any recourse to public funds, but this is about how we protect the taxpayer in a scenario where there is. Perhaps we can have a discussion about bank branch closures, which is obviously of great concern to Members across the House.

I appreciate that amendment 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Wokingham, aims to introduce an additional safeguard by permitting the Bank of England to use its new power on the largest banks only if the Treasury permits that through regulations. He talked about that in his speech. However, there may be risks associated with that approach, particularly if the Bank of England needed to take a decision at pace in a crisis. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon was in the Treasury when many such situations arose. [Interruption.] Well, let us not rake over the history. We discussed some of these issues in Committee.

As the shadow Minister suggested, we are trying to avoid a window of uncertainty during which a statutory instrument would be laid. The Bank of England, working in close partnership and consultation with the Treasury and the other financial services regulators, needs to be able to act swiftly and decisively—often over the weekend. I ask hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Wokingham in particular, to cast our minds back to the weekend when Silicon Valley Bank UK was failing. The Bill derives from the lessons learned from that event.

What we saw from that incident is how quickly the authorities—the Bank of England in consultation with the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA—must move to find a solution before markets open and resolve a failing firm in a way that protects financial stability, depositors and the taxpayer. That has to be at the forefront of our minds when we are thinking about the amendments.

Amendment 3 could add a further stage to that process, whereby the Treasury must lay regulations to enable the Bank of England to act. That may well—it is most likely that it would—hamper those efforts to implement a solution swiftly to achieve those objectives. Had Silicon Valley Bank UK been caught by such requirements, that certainly would have made achieving the solution by Monday morning, before the markets opened, much more challenging. Again, the priority is to protect the depositors and to protect financial stability.

Overall, the Government firmly believe that it is better to leave flexibility for the Bank, noting the safeguards in place that I have already mentioned. On the basis of those points, I hope that hon. Members will be persuaded to support the Government’s position on this matter; I know that it is an issue of some contention.

Amendment 4, also in the name of the hon. Member for Wokingham, is on whether the Bank of England should have a growth and competitiveness objective when exercising its new power—another topic that we have discussed previously during the Bill’s passage. Growth and competitiveness are fundamental priorities for the Government, and as I stated in Committee, a disorderly bank failure could pose a serious risk to the growth and competitiveness of the sector and to the UK economy. The Bill seeks to mitigate that risk.

Bearing that in mind, the Government do not believe that they should impose a requirement on the Bank of England to consider growth and competitiveness when it is taking urgent crisis management action in relation to an individual distressed or failing firm. At such a time, the situation that it would have to manage would be challenging enough without an additional broad objective of that kind. The resolution objectives set out in the Banking Act 2009 already provide a solid basis on which it must make its decisions, including protecting financial stability, protecting covered depositors and protecting the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon reminded us, the Bank of England, in close partnership with the Treasury and the other financial services regulators, needs to act with speed and flexibility to maintain financial stability. Those considerations are very different from those that the PRA and the FCA make in their policymaking roles. The Government strongly support the existence of their secondary objective on facilitating growth and competitiveness.

I note and accept that there is a broader question about how the Bank of England can support growth and competitiveness, but this is a complex matter, and one that is well beyond the scope of the Bill. We will be resisting the amendment for those reasons.

Finally—[Interruption.] I see that our debate has attracted quite a lot of discussion around the edges; if I could hear myself think, it would be nice. I turn briefly to amendment 2, tabled by the shadow Minister. First, I reiterate that the Government have made clear their strong commitment to support the mutual sector, and I reassure him that we take our commitment in the manifesto to double the size of the mutual and co-operative sector very seriously. Many hon. Members on the Government Benches who serve as Labour and Co-operative MPs have a great interest in this matter, as has been demonstrated.

I also direct the shadow Minister—to be fair, he referred to a couple of them—to the package of measures that the Chancellor set out at Mansion House, which included the consultation on the potential to reform common bonds for credit unions in Great Britain. The Chancellor asked the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to produce a report on the mutuals landscape by the end of the year. She also welcomed the establishment of an industry-led mutual and co-operative business council, the first meeting of which I attended earlier this year.

Finance Bill

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sandher]

The housing formula has rightly been changed to where the need is greatest. In my constituency, for example, planning permission has not been approved to replace derelict factories on brownfield sites with new homes. I have seen too few homes being built and too many things being rejected. I am proud of this Government’s aim to build new homes, and I have full faith in the formula. We need more homes everywhere, including in both of our constituencies.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point and an excellent speech. He is right to highlight the importance of housing, in terms of both quality of life and labour mobility, as well as the many other benefits to the economy. I commend the good example of Reading, where many brownfield sites are being redeveloped. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) may wish to visit Berkshire to see how well we are rebuilding our town centres, as are many other cities and towns around the country.

[Dr Sandher]

I could not agree more. Perhaps we should all take a trip to see the great work being done in Reading, because we have to build a lot more homes. My generation is increasingly finding that working hard and getting a good job is no guarantee of owning a home in the end. That is what this Government are fixing with this Budget.

It is not only the young who are not sharing in growth. Growth has gone to capital over labour, and technological change means that machines can do tasks far more cheaply than humans. More payments to capital mean less for workers. The labour share of GDP has fallen by a sixth since deindustrialisation. Today, across the Atlantic, we see the dangers of Bidenomics—

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Matt Rodda Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

We are dealing with the Bill in front of us today. To do so at the moment would be too complex for the licensing reasons and other reasons set out in Committee, which could undermine the returns that would be made for taxpayers, whether in Wales or other parts of the country.

The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire spoke to amendment 5, a version of which was moved in Committee on his behalf. We recognise that the amendment has been revised. However, as I said in Committee, we are cautious about putting more obligations on the Crown Estate than clause 3 already does; there is danger of the overreach that he spoke about. I am sure he will be listening to the Minister’s speech with some interest.

The kernel of the Bill is the expansion of the power of the Crown Estate to borrow, but there is a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels. Amendment 4, which appears in my name, would limit borrowing to a net debt-to-asset value ratio of no more than 25%, which could be amended by affirmative regulations. That would, I believe, be a proportionate check on this new borrowing power. When pushed in Committee, the Government again stated that limits on borrowing are best set outside legislation in a memorandum of understanding, but a memorandum of understanding is all too easily altered at the stroke of a pen—a point the Minister did not address in Committee. Will he give an undertaking, at the very least, that any changes to a memorandum of understanding would be reported to Parliament?

Given that Parliament is being asked to remove the restriction on borrowing and that the Government agree there should be a limit, I struggle to see why the cap should not be set in legislation, with the ability to amend it. Borrowing more than 25% carries risk, which could ultimately affect the sustainability of the estate. That is why the Government themselves have accepted that there should be a limit. As this new power affects assets held on behalf of the nation, it should be subject to control. This would be a perfectly reasonable check, and I hope Members will back it.

New clause 5 would require the Crown Estate to seek Treasury approval for disposals amounting to 10% or more of its total assets, and then to lay a report before Parliament. Disposal of assets has been an important part of the discussions throughout the proceedings on the Bill, both here and in the other place. Indeed, clause 5 was introduced after pressure to require Treasury consent before disposing of any of the Crown Estate’s rights or privileges in relation to the territorial seabed. That is a welcome safeguard, but can the Minister conceive of any circumstances in which the Government would approve of such a sale? Can he give a commitment that national security would be at the fore in any consideration of such a proposal? Would Ministers come to the House before agreeing to any such disposal?

In Committee, the Minister stated that the current process dictates that the Government will be consulted on any potential sale of a nationally significant asset. How does he define nationally significant? He also argued that requiring Treasury consent for large disposals would undermine the flexibility that the Crown Estate needs to operate commercially, but the proposed new clause simply requires Treasury consent to be sought and then reported to Parliament. The Crown Estate will not suddenly decide tomorrow to dispose of an asset; it will go through its internal processes and business cases. A version of those papers could be provided to Ministers and, depending on the Ministers, there could be a very rapid approval process that does not compromise flexibility but ensures accountability. These assets are held for the benefit of the nation, and we should ensure some form of transparency and scrutiny.

New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay before Parliament any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy. That is fundamental, as without being able to see details of the agreement, we do not know what has been agreed. There is a lack of clarity over how this new partnership will work. We are still concerned that it has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The Opposition are sceptical about what the Government say about GB Energy, because during the election Labour claimed that GB Energy would cut energy bills by £300, but bills are going up. The chairman of GB Energy has refused to say when people can expect £300 off their energy bills. We know that GB Energy will spend £8.3 billion of taxpayers’ money, but will not generate any energy, be an energy supplier or save families £300.

We are concerned that at all stages the Government have resisted greater transparency. When pushed on Second Reading and in Committee, the Exchequer Secretary said that while the partnership agreement itself will not be published since it will be commercially sensitive, the Crown Estate is committed to publishing information relating to the partnership as part of its existing annual report. However, the provisions to include that in an annual report could result in a considerable lag after such an agreement becomes operational and in only limited detail being published. Frankly, that is not good enough, which is why we have tabled new clause 6.

Transparency is important because we do not know how much the Crown Estate may invest in GB Energy’s projects. We do not know what level of funds from this borrowing power could be used for that purpose. When I asked the Crown Estate how it would decide between projects that GB Energy favours and others that may have a higher rate of return, I was told that there would be a business plan for the partnership. That shows a further lack of transparency, as I assume the Minister will not place that before the House. I also asked about decision making for the partnership, and the response was:

“The intention is that both parties will seek agreement on investment decisions whilst retaining their own independence. The Crown Estate will not be compelled to agree to anything which it does not wish to agree to in fulfilment of its statutory duty.”

I note the use of “intention” and “compelled”.

There is a lingering concern that Ministers may pressure GB Energy and the Crown Estate to invest in the Energy Secretary’s pet projects. Clearly, the chairman of GB Energy is very close to the Labour party, and nominating a Labour party donor as the chairman of the Crown Estate adds to this concern. Publishing the agreement could help allay concerns about the Government’s intentions.

If the Minister contends that the agreement, which does not yet exist, is too commercially sensitive, will he consider making a redacted version available? As I said in Committee, will he consider providing the agreement to the Public Accounts Committee on a confidential basis? As a former member of that Committee, I know of a precedent for that: in January 2018, the Cabinet Office provided a risk register of strategic suppliers to Government—a very sensitive document—to that Committee, which provided assurance on behalf of the House. I remain concerned about political pressure being put on the Crown Estate and urge Members to support our new clause 6, which would simply require the Chancellor to lay the partnership agreement before Parliament.

The Crown Estate Bill will deliver the modernisation of the Crown Estate. Our amendments and new clauses would ensure appropriate oversight and transparency as it delivers on its primary duty to maintain and enhance the value of the assets and the return for taxpayers.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute this evening. I will speak in favour of the Bill and address some of the amendments and new clauses, although there probably is not time to address them all. The Bill is an important and necessary step to help the Government take speedy action to tackle the climate emergency, and to help ensure energy security. It modernises the management of the Crown Estate, as we have heard, which potentially is a sleeping giant of green energy provision. The estate is responsible for vast amounts of coastal land and seabed, which have enormous potential to deliver wind power and other renewables.

Tackling the climate emergency is a significant challenge, but it is achievable. However, we need to step up to the challenge, and the Bill is part of a wider transformation of Government policy to do exactly that. As we heard in Committee, the Bill is urgently needed because although the Crown Estate has enormous potential, the rules governing its management are unduly restrictive. For example, the Crown Estate Act 1961, which governs the estate’s management of its resources, sets out rules that would now be deemed inappropriate for holding very large cash balances. That makes it difficult for the Crown Estate to work with private investors to develop new wind energy and to transmit urgently needed new power to the grid. There is a clear need for these measures. I hope that, after sufficient debate, it is time for the Bill to make further progress.

I would like to support the Minister by briefly pointing out the inherent errors of some of the new clauses and amendments. New clause 5 seeks Treasury approval for the disposal of more than 10% of the Crown Estate’s assets. Clearly, that would reduce flexibility for the Crown Estate in managing its estate and business. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to lay any partnership agreement between the Crown Estate and GB Energy before Parliament. However, as we have heard, partnership agreements are normally commercially sensitive, and there could be a risk to further business if that was carried out.

Let me turn briefly to the amendments. Amendment 3, which in my opinion is misconstrued, would require the commissioners to assess the adequacy of protections against coastal erosion in areas affected by their offshore activities. However, the UK already has a whole series of dedicated statutory bodies in each of the devolved Administrations that are tasked with exactly that activity.

Equally, amendment 5 is unnecessary. It would ask the Crown Estate when reviewing the impact of its work to consider the impact on net zero targets, regional economic development and energy security. However, it is clear that the whole Bill is intended to tackle the challenge of addressing and eventually reaching net zero. Referencing specific targets risks further complicating what is already an important Bill that has had considerable discussion in Committee.

As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said at an earlier stage, this is an important Bill to help the UK achieve our climate targets, and it is a significant step forward in helping us retain energy security. It is time for the whole House to support it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.