Banking Services: Accessibility

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the accessibility of banking services.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for permitting me the opportunity to raise the issues and concerns about access to banking services across the country and in our communities. These are nationwide concerns, and the issue vexes many MPs and constituents—certainly in my constituency, where a large number of banks have closed in the last decade. Many people, particularly the digitally excluded and the most vulnerable, have been left in extremely difficult circumstances.

My relationship with banking is rather rudimentary, and I hope that those more engaged in debates on banking and financial services will tolerate my rudimentary dialogue on this issue; it is not one of my specialist subjects by any means, as I think will become apparent. Nevertheless, as a Member of Parliament, I have taken a very close interest in this issue, largely provoked by the closure in January this year of a bank in my constituency —in Penzance, west Cornwall. That has had a rather offensive impact on the town.

I am also concerned about the rather high-handed manner in which this closure was carried out, without any consultation—simply an announcement that was then followed through. I was shocked by the impact and many resulting factors of the closure, as well as the dismissive attitude of the bank when it came to that impact on some of the most vulnerable, disabled and digitally excluded people in the community. I have had a nine-year sabbatical from this place; when I was here previously, I did not face these issues as there were not any bank closures. There have been significant closures since. I was surprised at the dialogue and the attitude of the high-street bank—in this case, Lloyds.

I declare an interest in that I was a loyal Lloyds customer until last week; I had been for more than the last half century. I have been so dismayed by the attitude and approach of the bank to this closure that I have withdrawn all my custom and taken it elsewhere, and the bank knows it. The same applies to many in the Penzance area of my constituency.

When it announced the closure, the bank promised the local community a community banker who would come for one day every fortnight into a public building to offer an alternative service to help those people who needed face-to-face banking. I have had the following information from a constituent who attended one of those sessions very recently; they have only just been set up. The hub, held in St John’s Hall, a local authority building in Penzance, consisted of one community banker, with equipment in a very large room; no cash or notes were available, only advice. There were 28 people queueing to see the community banker, waiting in a very public place in an echoey room; there is no confidentiality there. The first two people waiting were in the meeting room for one hour—20 people stayed; eight left because they could not wait any longer.

This person’s wife arrived at 9 am and arrived back home just before 12 midday, having walked to and fro. It was a total shambles, which shows the disregard Lloyds has for people. The next time the community banker arrives, which is apparently now in three weeks’ time, the hub will be held upstairs, which is not good for older and disabled people. The nearby post office at St Clare could not dispense any cash during that time because the system was down, including the cashpoint outside the post office. Lloyds has recently stopped people from cashing cheques at post offices as well, so banking services that should be and have been provided to people have been withdrawn.

According to Fair4All Finance, more than 20 million people across the UK are in “financially vulnerable circumstances”. One in 10 people has no savings, and 21% have less than £1,000 in savings—nearly a third of our population are in extremely financially vulnerable situations: just one or two pay packets away from homelessness. Nearly 2 million people have used an unlicensed lender or loan shark in the last year, and 4.5 million people in financial vulnerability prefer face-to-face banking with a person. The issue has grown in urgency in many parts of the country. Access to in-person banking should be an essential public service. Closures affect people’s financial security, local economies, small business survival, digital inclusion, and the independence and dignity of older and disabled people.

The Minister will no doubt refer to the fact that banking hubs have replaced the banks, which have all been removed from towns, falling like a house of cards. However, having looked at the services available through hubs, I have to say that they are very limited in scope. I wonder about their sustainability in the longer run.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate, because so many people in my area of Devon, as well as his area of Cornwall, feel strongly about the issue. Not only are fewer services available when a bank closes its high street branch, but, if they are available a banking hub, they are available only one day per week rather than five. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in the gift of the Government to reconsider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, and to look again at the ease with which banks are closing their high street branches?

[Andrew George]

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

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

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

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

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

Spring Forecast

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

In my hon. Friend’s constituency, thousands of children will be lifted out of poverty from next month because this Labour Government have chosen to get rid of the two-child policy that was introduced by the Conservatives and supported by their Tory tribute act friends on the Reform Benches. On business rates, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Business and Trade or a relevant Minister would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. The changes that we have made mean that there is a permanently lower multiplier for smaller businesses and high street businesses.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Many small and medium-sized enterprises add value to our towns and villages, but I am concerned about their survival. The Community Waffle House in Axminster is a community interest company that is struggling under the pressure of last year’s national insurance increases. Waffle Axminster boasts £3.9 million in public sector cost avoidance and value created, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport wellbeing valuation for reduced loneliness. Will the Chancellor consider VAT relief to take account of the public sector cost avoidance by that CIC and other hospitality businesses?

[Rachel Reeves]

This Labour Government have permanently reduced the multiplier faced by small businesses and high street businesses—the business rates system that we inherited from the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman mentions VAT. When Labour left office in 2010, VAT was 17.5%, and the Conservative Government, with the help of the Liberal Democrats, increased it to 20%. It has been there for 15 years. If his party wants to cut taxes, it also has to explain which public services it is going to cut. We have increased spending on the health service by £29 billion. That was the right decision, but it was only possible because of the tax decisions we have made.

Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My understanding is that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is still consulting on this matter, so the hon. Lady and other colleagues will have a chance to feed into that process. In the spending review, we put an extra £600 million into supporting local authorities after the years of austerity under the Conservative Government. While the previous Conservative Prime Minister said he would take money away from poorer areas and give it to Tunbridge Wells, we are investing more fairly in the areas that need it most.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates on the hospitality sector.

[Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)]

4. Whether she plans to increase the level of small business rates relief for the hair and beauty sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

There are a number of questions on this topic, and I am sure there will be more this afternoon when I make a statement to the House on a package of support in relation to business rates, with a particular focus on pubs. As previously announced, we are introducing a support package worth £4.3 billion to support rate payers who are seeing increases in their business rates.

[Richard Foord]

Joanna Watson runs the Elizabeth hotel and the Kingswood hotel in Sidmouth. She is essentially facing a 20% rise in her business rate costs. Joanna’s bills do not reflect what she earns; they stay high all year round, even though there are months like these in winter when income completely collapses. The Government legislated for a 20p reduction in the business rates multiplier for hospitality, and that created an expectation that it would be used. The Minister said that he will make a statement this afternoon, but will he also consider the plight of hotels such as those in Sidmouth?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We have considered the challenges that hospitality businesses and businesses on our high streets have been facing. That is why we put in place £4.3 billion of support at the Budget. We recognise that there are concerns as to how hotels are valued for business rates, and that will be one of the items I talk about in the statement later.

Rural Fuel Duty Relief

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. My constituency of Honiton and Sidmouth is predominantly rural. Residents live in villages, small towns and hamlets, rather than urban centres. It is classified as such by the Office for National Statistics—that is, as a rural or rural town constituency. Of course, the people I represent do not need to consult the Office for National Statistics to know that, because they need only look in their wallet.

A Department for Transport survey found that people living in rural villages and hamlets travel about 2.5 miles for every mile travelled by residents of an urban area. Put simply, rural life is more expensive. People pay more for journeys to school, work, the shops and essential services.

Fuel costs more in rural areas. A UK Government road fuel review found that rural motorists typically pay between 1p and 2p more per litre because there are fewer filling stations and less competition. The Countryside Alliance estimates that rural households spend between £700 and £800 more each year on fuel than their urban counterparts. And of course there are alternatives in urban settings as public transport is much more readily available. In many parts of Devon, public transport simply is not an option.

Let me take, for example, the West of England rail line in east Devon. Its services were reduced by 50% for months across the autumn, and it desperately needs investment—a passing loop—to enable services to run on time. Regular public transport on trains and buses is not an option. Many villages have no bus service at all.

The rural fuel duty relief scheme currently applies to just 21 areas across the UK. The Liberal Democrats propose that it should be expanded to 20 new areas to support motorists in rural communities. A Government assessment in 2013 concluded that the original scheme was successful in keeping pump prices down in, for example, North Devon, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) identified.

For isolated and rural communities across the UK it is imperative that the Government act on their past advice and extend the scheme to tackle the systemic disadvantages faced by rural residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Other Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have asked the same question; I was going to come on to it, but I will happily do so now. As a Department, HMRC requires retailers to keep records evidencing that the 5p saving is being passed on to customers, but I would be happy to look in more detail at how that is done. Maybe we can catch a word in the Tea Room to discuss it in more detail, because the Government want to make sure that that is happening and that the 5p cut—although we can debate whether it should be higher—is passed on to consumers in full.

The Members who spoke in the debate have deep knowledge of their constituencies and have often talked about their trust in their small local businesses, many of which will be running the garages or forecourts in the more rural areas, such as the middle of the moors. I must say that the hon. Member for Strangford is doing a very honourable thing in going to more expensive garages to support the local businesses. That is a very commendable act; I must say that it is not one I always engage in, as I like to find a good price, but I commend him on it.

While fuel duty costs are broadly the same, I admit that they are slightly higher than they were in 2011. However, as foreshadowed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the Chancellor keeps all taxes under review; decisions on future fuel duty rates and rural fuel duty reliefs will always be made in the round and in the context of the public finances. That said, I have noted with interest all the points made today and again thank the hon. Member for North Devon for securing this debate and giving me the chance, as the Minister with responsibility, to reflect on these important issues.

A number of Members have also suggested that the Government should increase the number of areas in scope of a rural fuel duty relief—I can sense a potential Liberal Democrat local election campaign, although I would not possibly want to comment. I was going to say that neither I nor my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—I checked—had received any formal representations to expand the coverage of the relief since the start of this Parliament, but of course I have received some comments on that during the debate. There are no current plans to amend the list of eligible locations but, if Members strongly feel that their constituencies fall into the categories in the scheme’s rules, I will always welcome representations, and they should feel free to write to me.

[Richard Foord]

If the Minister will not consider the geographical expansion of the rural fuel duty relief scheme, with a view to the Government’s introduction of the electric vehicle excise duty in April 2018, might he consider a duty relief for the existing areas, but applying to the electric fuel duty?

[Dan Tomlinson]

That is not something that we are actively considering. That said, the details of the eVED scheme are to be consulted on in detail. We are still a number of years from its introduction, and there will be many fine decisions that need to be made in the coming months ahead of its implementation, and I note the representation that the hon. Gentleman has made today.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Minister said that this reversal of plans to introduce inheritance tax on many farming families has happened

“after listening carefully to feedback from the farming community”.

This news just before Christmas was indeed a massive relief, but given that the farming community did not say anything in December that it had not been saying for the previous 13 months, will the Government listen properly in future?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, the Government will make sure that we do continue to listen.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

In a second—this is my punchline: “You’d better understand that if you want to develop your relationship in the back of a double cab pick-up, then that is going to cost you as well.”

[Richard Foord]

I suppose some in the farming community will not be taking up my right hon. Friend’s dating tips, but is he aware that 46% of farms are owned by single farmers and that a single farmer with 200 acres of land would have to pay 136% of their yearly profits to cover this tax bill?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am indeed aware of the general point. The specific illustration is a new one on me, but I am pretty sure, knowing my hon. Friend, that it will be well founded.

The reason this is so dangerous is rooted in the exceptionally poor return on capital investment that we get from agriculture. I have sat down with many farmers in my constituency. The average family farm in Orkney will be something in the region of 250 to 300 acres, running perhaps 100 suckler beef cattle and some sheep. The value of that property will be something in the region of £3 million, including stock, buildings and machinery, but it will return a net profit most years of something in the region of £25,000 to £30,000. Do the maths here—that is an inheritance tax liability of £400,000, which, even over the 10 years that is allowed, farmers simply will not be able to pay. As a consequence, farms are going to be sold off in whole or in part, and they will not be bought by those who want to produce food. That comes to the nub of it. The Prime Minister tells us that food security is national security, but the changes to APR will in fact diminish our ability to look after our own food needs.

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said that this would only affect 375 estates per year. That figure may or may not be correct—I have heard nobody outside Treasury say it is a credible figure—but it honestly misses the point. Whether it is one estate or 1,000 estates, an injustice is an injustice, and that is why I was so disappointed by the Minister’s attitude today. Let us consider who will be paying this tax and whose estates will be affected. The Treasury’s own figures tell us that 75% of those estates will belong to those who are 75 or over. That is why the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is so pernicious and so obnoxious. The effect of the anti-forestalling clause is to trap especially those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s into the new rules unless they die before next April. I dislike the use of hyperbole, especially when we are talking about people and their lives, but the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is downright cruel.

Those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s did it principally for two reasons. First, they were given good, sound professional advice that this was the best way to hold on to the farm and hand it on, and that was true until last October. We also have to understand—and again, this is rooted in the poor level of farm incomes—that many of them did it because they could not afford not to. In my own family, there are those who continued to farm into their 80s because if they did not, they would be left simply on the state pension and nothing else. That is why this Bill and these measures are wrong, they are dangerous, and they are a threat to our growth, our national security and our food security, and I, along with my colleagues, will be voting against them this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next paragraph. The energy profits levy should be coming to an end, but it has been extended by this Labour Government until 2030. That has caused 100 job losses from Harbour Energy, and it is causing 1,000 job losses every month, according to Offshore Energies UK. We are in this situation because the Prime Minister lacks the mettle to get rid of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. That is one job getting protected in Whitehall, but it is costing 1,000 jobs a month in Scotland. That is the Labour way, and it always will be.

On electric vehicles, this thruppence a mile probably does not sound that much to those who live in Chelsea or Kensington, but it will cost an awful lot more to those who live in Angus and Perthshire Glens. I get the politics of it: half of the entire Labour membership lives within Greater London, and the other half lives in other English cities, and in Glasgow and Cardiff. They probably think it is a tremendous wheeze to make people in my constituency subsidise the tax on the Labour membership’s electric vehicles, but people are smarter than that. People who live in the countryside can add up, and they know that this Government’s attack on their electric vehicle taxes does not add up. They are being swindled by a Labour Government.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is slightly unfair to those 80 or 90 Labour MPs who represent rural areas, and it is worth paying tribute to the speeches by the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), and for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). They have spoken out against this mean, callous agricultural property relief measure, and they have done a brave thing by doing so. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree?

[Dave Doogan]

I absolutely do agree. I am in full accord with those Members’ bravery on the APR, but I am not sure how that links directly to 3p a mile for electric vehicles. The point is made, though.

The preamble to the Budget was hugely challenging and had a direct consequence on the markets. It caused people to freeze employment and investment in their businesses, and it caused pensioners to cash in their pensions. I am pleased that the SNP was the first to call on the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate the Chancellor’s behaviour, and I hope that the FCA’s position changes. Despite all that, Scotland’s economy remains one of the best performing parts of the United Kingdom. Since 2007, per-person growth under the SNP has been 10.2%. That compares to 6.8% in the UK. We lead the whole of the UK, with the exception of London, for foreign direct investment, and a NatWest report recently confirmed that Scotland had one of the highest start-up rates in the UK in the first two quarters of this year.

Employment across the UK is 75%, but as I mentioned in my intervention on the Minister, unemployment in the UK has risen from 4.1% to 5.1% since this Labour Government grasped power last year. Thankfully for the people of Scotland, unemployment is 25% lower in Scotland, at 3.8%. I am sure that fact will not be lost on the good people of Glasgow East. Next month, the Scottish Government will deliver their Budget and continue to build on our success, but the SNP will not be voting for this Bill’s Second Reading. We will not be party to the injudicious and unjust damage that will be inflicted on businesses and households by the grabbing hand of Labour through this Bill. The people will have their verdict on this risible Chancellor and her bilging outflow of fiscal calamity in May 2026, specifically in Scotland and Wales, and in English councils. I, for one, look forward to the Government getting their just desserts.

High Streets: Autumn Budget 2024

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is an honour to secure this debate on the autumn Budget’s impact on high streets as my first Adjournment debate, not just because it is such a vital topic but because it is a topic dear to my heart. In my maiden speech, I shared the story of helping my mum on the shop floor, and it seems only fitting that my first Adjournment debate is on our high streets.

Every night after school, and most weekends, I helped out in my mum’s gift shop. I remember chatting away to the staff, the customers and our neighbouring businesses. I remember late nights sorting out items to donate to the local charity, and the summer when I offered to run the shop myself.

I also remember what happened when the economy turned, having to pack away stock and move to smaller premises because it was that or closure. I remember helping my parents with the mortgage as a teenager, gleefully buying broken biscuits as a family and only now, later in life, realising how much work my parents put in to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.

After many successful years, during which several premises were opened, the cost of retail and business rates, the competition from online giants and the decline in consumer spending was too much. My mum could not beat them, so she joined them and took her business online. In many ways, it was a relief for the family. It was a simpler way of continuing the business, but it was hard to see the store close 30 years after she first set up shop.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right about how sad it is to see high street shops close, such as the one in which she used to help. We have seen local councils invest in Cullompton’s high street, but this is sadly offset by the shop closures. Will my hon. Friend make some recommendations on what the Government could do to prevent some of these shop closures?

[Victoria Collins]

The heart of this debate is about making sure we look after those businesses and the many more that could open.

My story shows why this debate is so important to me. I know that the story of our high streets is the story of our local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I am here in my ministerial capacity, of course, but I also represent High Wycombe in the south-east, so I understand her point, and promise to take it back to the Department, and to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.

Levelling the playing field for the high street is just the start, and we are committed to transforming the whole system in the longer term. As we set out in the “Transforming Business Rates” policy paper that we published alongside the Budget, the Government will create a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. It is important that we work in partnership with high-street businesses to get the reforms right. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted for bringing the voice of small businesses in her constituency to our proceedings.

Government officials have undertaken a series of roundtable events to understand from businesses across all sectors and sizes how they think reform of the system can best be delivered. Over 200 businesses have already given their feedback at those roundtables. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is leading that work and engaging with a broad range of high-street businesses, as are officials in my Department.

[Richard Foord]

I appreciate that it is perhaps the Exchequer Secretary who would know this, but will the Government make sure that the reform of business rates that they are proposing is not negative for those small businesses with a very small rateable value that do not currently pay business rates at all?

[Emma Reynolds]

Indeed. The point of the reforms is to better protect small businesses. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are already small businesses that are protected, but we want to ensure that those small businesses that are above the current thresholds are also protected, and do not pay the rates that they pay at the moment. We want to make sure that small businesses on the high street are better supported—that is the whole point of the reforms—so I can reassure him that it will not get worse for small businesses. It may be the Exchequer Secretary’s area, but I know that much, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to respond to that question. We look forward to further engagement with businesses over the coming months on delivering a business rates system fit for the future.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted again on her first Adjournment debate in the House—it is also the first Adjournment debate that I have responded to as a Minister—and thank her for raising this important issue. This Government have delivered the economic stability that high-street businesses need to thrive, and we are committed to delivering the business rates reforms that will support high streets up and down the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. Likewise, he is always thoughtful in his contributions, so I am always glad to hear from him and indeed the interventions that he allowed during his speech.

I know hon. Members have raised questions about the reforms that we are making, and I will try to address as many of them as I can. However, let me start by briefly reminding hon. Members of the economic context in which the decisions were taken. At the autumn Budget, we took difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending

to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services, as a result of the situation that we inherited from the previous Administration. We took those tough decisions in a way that will make the tax system fairer and more sustainable. The decision to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief was not taken lightly. The reforms mean that, despite the tough fiscal context, the Government will maintain significant levels of relief from inheritance tax, beyond what is available to others.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will give way maybe once or twice, but I do not have much time.

[Richard Foord]

I do not question the Minister’s difficult inheritance, but the Labour party adviser Dan Neidle suggests that the plan to slap inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1 million should be replaced with a much higher threshold with a clawback mechanism, perhaps for land over £20 million that is sold. That would tackle the Dysons of the world without affecting small family farms. What does the Minister think of that proposal?

[James Murray]

I am just about to come on to the details of the reforms that we have made to agricultural property relief and business property relief. If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment, he will see some of the reasoning behind the decisions that we took.

The Government recognise the role that the reliefs play, particularly in supporting farms and small businesses, and under our reforms that will continue. The case for reform is underlined by the fact that the full unlimited exemption, which was introduced in 1992, had become unsustainable. Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets has become heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief.

It is a similar picture for business property relief. More than 50% of business property relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for her excellent maiden speech. She spoke movingly and touchingly about her father and about dementia, and it is a theme that we must come back to in this House. It is really profound. I also share her admiration for Nigel Mills, who was an excellent predecessor, and she was very magnanimous in her comments about him. I will be sure to see her in the Tea Room to hear more about Derbyshire. Hopefully, she will not be dictating that I drink a Mojito, because I cannot bear them.

I understand that the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill is being steered through the House by the Treasury—quite right too—but I think it would be worth my saying at the outset why the Bill is a positive development in security, defence and foreign affairs.

In December 2021, amid the build-up of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin wrote two letters. He wrote one to the United States and one to NATO. His demands included a Russian veto on NATO membership for Ukraine and the implied removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of multinational NATO battalions from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. That would have been completely and utterly unacceptable, and we can only surmise why he might have wanted NATO to act in this way. It is because once ground is taken it is that much harder to take back. Offence is so much more costly than defence.

It is to the issue of costs that we must now turn. The purpose of the Bill is to support the $50 billion G7 initiative launched in June, which represented a co-ordinated effort by the G7 and the EU to support Ukraine. However, with Hungary potentially blocking concerted EU action, I welcome the provision in the Bill that will ensure that future financial assistance extends to any changes in subsequent arrangements, in case we can reach broader consensus later. It is crucial that we collaborate with our EU partners to swiftly advance the agreement.

The Minister talked about the UK being a first mover in this space, which is very welcome, although states such as Estonia, Finland and Czechia worked on it prior to us, and Canada has been a driver of it too. The UK’s £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 arrangement reflects our GDP share, but as a leader in supporting Ukraine, I feel we need to go beyond simply a proportional share. After all, doing so could provide support for Ukraine in place of some taxpayers’ money. It is welcome that the UK is contributing £3 billion annually, and the Government have pledged to maintain that for as long as it takes, but as Zelensky said, why should western taxpayers foot the bill when frozen Russian assets could be confiscated and given for use by Ukraine? The Bill is a positive step, but we should talk about not just future profits generated from frozen Russian assets, but the principle—the assets themselves. The approach set out today uses only a fraction of the $300 billion available, much of which is held at Euroclear central securities depository. To support Ukraine effectively, we must go further. We should repurpose all these assets—not just the profits, but the principle.

Some critics argue that confiscating the funds would pose legal risks. They talk about sovereign immunity—an argument that is also used by some who oppose the prosecution of leaders for the crime of aggression—but sovereign immunity should also apply when thinking about the sovereignty of states. Legally, we have to think about how Russia violated international law. It violated the UN charter and blatantly breached the charter’s principle of state sovereignty. It is estimated that Russia has already caused £400 billion worth of damage—that is what will be required to rebuild Ukraine—and Russia will ultimately have to pay to make good that damage, but what use will the frozen assets be to Ukraine if Ukraine no longer exists? The goal cannot be only to rebuild Ukraine from the rubble, but to help Ukrainians prevent their country from turning to ash.

Some argue that confiscating the assets could destabilise global markets, or deter other nations from holding reserves in western financial institutions in the future, but those fears are overstated, and need to be weighed against the risk of doing nothing. The dominance of western financial systems remains robust. Alternatives such as China’s renminbi lack the stability and scale of the US dollar. Cryptocurrencies are too volatile to be a viable alternative, so the risk of inaction should be thought of in terms of what has happened in global markets since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. There was a very wobbly period, including here in the UK with the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which was partly about supporting people with their energy bills. At the time, the Government felt that they had to provide such support because of the rise in the price of gas caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Again, we cannot just suppose that doing nothing will have no consequences. There are concerns that confiscation could reduce our leverage in future peace negotiations, but this war first needs to be won. This is not the Gulf war in 1991 when frozen assets were used to compensate Kuwait; this war is still not determined.

Other states considering investing in western institutions have nothing to fear if they have no intention of invading their neighbours. As things stand, Russia has shown little interest in meaningful dialogue. To simply wait and keep the assets as a negotiating tool is naive and defeatist. By repurposing the assets now, we not only support Ukraine’s immediate needs, but reinforce the principle that aggression must not pay and that nuclear sabre-rattling is completely unacceptable.

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), said, the geopolitical context underscores the urgency of the moment. Trump commented in March that he sees US isolationism as attractive. When talking to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) on GB News, he said,

“We have an ocean in between some problems… a nice big, beautiful ocean.”

With the United States facing questions about whether its support for Ukraine could be reduced or even diminish, we need to think further about what more we can do with our European allies. Acting now to unlock the full potential of Russian assets would provide Ukraine with a financial lifeline insulating it from shifts in political will elsewhere in the world.

The Bill highlights the importance of collaboration with our European partners. As the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), pointed out, UK taxpayers have already contributed over £12 billion in aid to Ukraine since February 2022, but our absence from EU defence frameworks limits our ability to co-ordinate effectively with those European allies. We could use some of the confiscated frozen assets to support joint procurement, perhaps associating with some of the frameworks, such as the European Defence Agency. Shared management of those confiscated funds would ensure transparency, accountability and maximum impact. The future profit funds, suggested as a base for the Bill, are scheduled to be disbursed between December 2024 and 2027. That timeline does not match the urgency of Ukraine’s need.

Just last weekend, we saw Russia’s largest attack on Ukrainian infrastructure in months. Russia launched 120 missiles and 90 drones. Three weeks ago, the Finnish Government took a bold step by confiscating $4.5 billion in Russian assets, making Finland one of the first countries to take decisive action. The Finnish confiscation must surely be hitting Russia where it hurts, and we should follow the examples set by Finland, Czechia and Estonia, working together to confiscate those Russian assets—including the principal, not just the interest.

The stakes could not be higher: Ukraine’s fight is a fight for eastern Europe and the west more broadly. It is a fight for the principles of democracy, sovereignty and international law that underpin global peace and security. I welcome the Bill, but it is vital that the provisions align with the goal of confiscating all Russian assets to support Ukraine financially. Let us rise to the challenge, demonstrate solidarity with Ukraine, and show leadership on the global stage and unwavering friendship to our European allies. By collaborating with those European allies to confiscate Russian assets, we can help pave the way for an outcome that makes it plain to any Government who are watching that aggression does not pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on what remains a very important and pressing issue. As Ukraine enters yet another difficult winter, I am proud of the consistent support that this Government have shown through not just our £2.26 billion ERA contribution, but the long-term commitments we have made to supporting Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence.

I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, along with my hon. Friends the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) in saying how proud I am that there is unity across the House in standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at this very difficult time. This is a complex issue, and I will try to answer the questions posed by the Opposition and my hon. Friends. If I have missed out anything, I am happy to write to Members.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of the Bill, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for making such a powerful maiden speech. I think I am right in saying that her late mother Margaret, David, Martin and all her children would be extremely proud of their extraordinary daughter, mother, stepmother and wife. I very much welcome this “vicious dictator” to the House. We need more of them in the women’s parliamentary Labour party, so I am pleased to have her here.

The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire asked about the timing of the release of the funds. We intend to begin spending the funds early next year to ensure that the funding supports our Ukrainian allies as soon as possible. We intend to do so in three equal tranches over three financial years, starting in 2024-25, and the G7 has agreed that all ERA funds will be given out by the end of 2027. He also asked about how the UK will be repaid. We are providing the funding as part of the wider G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loan initiative, which means that the UK will be repaid via the extraordinary profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU. The EU has already enacted the necessary regulations to operationalise the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, which will distribute the profits. That came into effect on 29 October, as he is probably aware.

The hon. Member asked about what will happen to the UK if the loan is not repaid. The repayment will rely on profits continuing to flow from immobilised RSAs into the EU over multiple years. The UK and the wider G7 have committed to ensuring that Russian sovereign assets remain immobilised across our jurisdictions until Russia ceases its war of aggression and pays for the damage that it has caused to Ukraine, and G7 lenders have worked closely together to design the ERA in a way that allows for repayment in a scenario in which profits cease and Russia pays Ukraine. I hope that answers his question, but I can write to him if he wants more detail.

On NATO’s spending target, there is a clear commitment from the Government to spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence, which has categorically not changed. The hon. Member will have seen in our manifesto that we will set up a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and this will be done at a future fiscal event.

The hon. Member asked about the total value of assets and private assets. Between February 2022 and October 2023, £22.7 billion-worth of Russian assets were frozen due to UK financial sanctions regulations—a marked increase on the figure of £18.39 billion that was provided in the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s annual report in 2021-22. OFSI is currently analysing data on immobilised assets, and on the type and value of the assets.

Like many Members, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked about the involvement of the ERA in asset seizure. I have to make it clear that the G7’s ERA scheme does not represent the seizure of Russian sovereign assets in any way; it is about using the extraordinary profits that the EU has set aside to pay a series of loans to Ukraine. He and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked about seizing Russian sovereign assets in the UK. Russia’s obligation under international law is clear: it must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The G7 agreement to use the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets for the loan is an important step towards ensuring that Russia pays. Although we continue to consider all lawful avenues by which Russia is made to meet its obligation to Ukraine under international law, it is important that the UK and the G7 remain focused on delivering the ERA and the benefit that it will give to Ukraine right now, because we are very conscious of the situation in which the country finds itself.

A few other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), asked about the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC. The Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend might know that the proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money, but this is something that we are working on and we are trying to move it along as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) asked whether this was an unlimited resource loan. The negotiations remain ongoing on the details of the loan terms, but I am focused on ensuring that there is limited impact on Ukraine’s balance sheet. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) talked about the implications of the Trump victory for Ukraine. I cannot speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump may make, but we have welcomed bipartisan US support for Ukraine, which has been key in the international effort. I feel that Ukraine’s security is vital for global security. If there are any other questions that I have not answered, I will write to Members. I am conscious of the time and I want to finish by thanking hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions to the debate.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard her say that at this stage the Government intend to work on the profits rather than the seized assets themselves, but will she undertake to talk to ministerial colleagues in Finland, Czechia and Estonia to find out how they have gone about seizing and using confiscated assets?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially with regard to other countries, and I am happy to have conversations with ministerial colleagues across different countries and find out what they are doing. This is our position for now, but this is an ongoing situation and things will move. I am happy to speak to Ministers from different countries who are using assets differently.

The ERA is an innovative scheme. It will ensure that Ukraine receives vital support throughout 2025 and beyond. It will take the money generated from Russian sovereign assets and use it to support Ukraine in the best possible way. This is further proof for us that the G7’s support for Ukraine will not falter, and that the UK will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in thanking the people of our country for all the support that they have shown Ukraine. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me for one minute while I say that my own constituents of Hampstead and Highgate have opened their doors for Ukrainian refugees, giving them their homes, community spaces and education spaces, and I particularly pay tribute to my local synagogue, South Hampstead synagogue, which is providing free English lessons for Ukrainian refugees. I was very pleased to meet those people in Parliament last week.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Treasury or Secretary of State for the purpose of providing loans or other financial assistance to, or for the benefit of, the government of Ukraine as a result of—

(a) the arrangements described as the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans for Ukraine announced on 14 June 2024 at the G7 summit in Apulia in Italy, or

(b) any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace those arrangements.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Ordered,

That Marie Goldman, Leigh Ingham, Gordon McKee, Charlotte Nichols and Jesse Norman be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—(Lucy Powell.)

House of Commons Members’ Fund

Ordered,

That Holly Lynch, Sir Charles Walker and Peter Grant be removed as Trustees of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Mark Tami, Chris Elmore and Dr Danny Chambers be appointed as Trustees in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016.—(Lucy Powell.)