What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,832 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
Four EU member states have written to the European Commission, asking that it explores new options for Ukraine to make use of immobilised Russian state assets for its self-defence. They propose that EU states spread the legal and financial risks of seizing those assets. When the Foreign Secretary goes to Ireland this evening, will he support that initiative?
Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine is large at 1,250 square miles and the population is elderly. The No. 25 bus runs every two and half hours. If a constituent needs to bank in Taunton, it takes five hours to get there and back. Does she agree that increasing face-to-face banking services, particularly in enormous constituencies such as mine, is crucial?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The extension of the Government’s powers to support energy costs will be welcome news for my South Cambridgeshire constituents and for people all over the country, who face continued pressure from high bills. We Liberal Democrats support this necessary extension but remain concerned that families and businesses are still far too exposed to global energy market shocks. The latest tensions and the ongoing conflict in the middle east serve only to increase the volatility in energy markets, so the Government’s £150 reduction on energy bills was welcome. However, the increase in wholesale gas prices resulting from the closure of the strait of Hormuz and from the existing tensions between the US and Iran was the main reason for Ofgem’s recent 4% price cap rise, which meant that the average household now faces a further £60 a year in costs. The extension enables the Government to continue to fund 75% of the renewables obligation with public spending through the Exchequer, rather than through energy bills. We have called for that for a long time. We urge the Minister to go further and to remove the entirety of the levy from people’s bills. The £150 reduction in bills also comes from the discontinuation of the energy company obligation scheme. At the time of that discontinuation, we warned that delays in detailing how the scheme will be replaced would mean many households once again facing cold, damp homes this winter. I know that is an issue of deep concern to the Minister, but it is deeply concerning that only 5,470 homes have been upgraded through the warm homes local grant—just 0.1% of the Government’s target of upgrading 5 million homes by 2030. With energy prices remaining so volatile, improving the energy efficiency of our homes is one of the best ways to reduce bills in the long term and to protect households from future shocks. It is time to provide a progressive social energy tariff for those struggling with costs. It is time that we acknowledge energy as a basic human need. That is why we Liberal Democrats call for an essential energy guarantee to give every household a discount on the basic portion of their energy use. That would save a typical family around £100 a year, and save the 20% least well-off around £140. Although we support the extension and the Government’s action to reduce some of the costs on energy bills, much more needs to be done to bring bills down and to protect households from future energy price shocks.
Local authorities and council leaders were asked to produce evidence-based proposals according to the criteria laid out by the Government, and they did so, but since then, as we have just heard, all we have seen is uncertainty and a vacuum of decision making at a time when councils should be gearing up for the local elections for the new unitary authorities next May. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we would like to hear two things from the Minister? First, in terms of the criteria, will it be the original criteria laid out by the Government that will be used to determine what the new unitary authorities will look like, and secondly, what timeline—
Our schools and colleges cannot be fuelled by hope alone. At the start of the summer, the Prime Minister outlined an overhaul of 14-to-16 education. This comes on the back of far-reaching reforms to special educational needs provision and a new—and as yet un-resourced—requirement to expand enrichment activities in our schools. Could the Prime Minister tell schools, and indeed parents, across the country how he is going to find the people and the cash to deliver all this? Our schools are at breaking point and teachers are leaving in their droves already.
With the United States stepping back from multilateral climate co-operation, what specific coalitions is the UK convening to fill the gap that the United States is leaving? Which countries have signed up to that so far?
The metropolis of Gairloch in Wester Ross—[Laughter.] It is a major town, I will have you know. It has seen its only bank closed, and Dingwall has seen its bank closed, so people have to travel two hours, each way, to get to Inverness city, and there is only one bus a day. That is bringing the town to its knees, and it is happening up and down the west coast. Does the hon. Member agree that this sort of thing is an enormous reason why we are seeing such major depopulation in remote areas?
I welcome what the Prime Minister just said about strengthening farming. If he is serious about this, one of the first things he can do is ensure that our farmers do not have to compete with imported food that is produced to lower standards than we expect. On Thursday, the European Union will ban the import of beef from Brazil, because it is not satisfied that it is produced safely, and the USA, China and Norway are likely to do the same thing. Will the Prime Minister offer to our consumers and farmers the same protections that those Governments offer theirs?
May I put on record that the Liberal Democrats’ concern and thoughts are with the people of Nepal and Tibet as this tragedy unfolds? I urge the Government to stay the distance with them. The UK’s spend on international aid and development aids our national security not only in climate change but in keeping extremism, pandemics and illegal immigration from our shores, but the Government have slashed aid brutally, and the true impact of the cuts was finally realised only in the final hours before summer recess. The cuts are deep and worrying. Will this Administration reverse them? Will the Secretary of State set out a timeline for when UK aid will return to 0.7% of GNI—a commitment that the House legislated for?
As a Kent MP, I am consistently amazed at how rubbish the Reform leadership of Kent county council is, but of particular note is the fact that when Reform came in, Kent was going to be the flagship for its DOGE, which is about saving loads of money. Does my hon. Friend know whether the council got on to that and renegotiated the contract? Are there any other options? Did it look into this? Can she tell me more about her interactions with Kent county council?
I want to join others in extending my sympathies and those of my party to the families and colleagues of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. My thoughts are with their loved ones at this extremely difficult time. By virtue of my in-laws, I am from a policing family, so I know the shock and grief that is being felt in the wider policing community, too. That should be acknowledged today in the Chamber. At least one of those killed in the Middlesbrough crash is in multiple videos posted on TikTok depicting dangerous driving. This is part of a concerning wider trend on social media platforms, where lives are being risked in the pursuit of clicks, and we must ask: who is benefiting from this? It is some of the world’s richest people. They are getting richer off the back of these platforms, which are currently under-regulated, while communities suffer the consequences. Can the Home Secretary explain why, despite her Government’s intention to force platforms to remove dangerous content that leads to dangerous activities and deaths, such platforms still have no legal obligation to do so? Events in America have shown that these companies can be brought to heel, so will the Home Secretary work with the Culture Secretary to strengthen the Online Safety Act 2023, so that the glorification of dangerous driving is brought into scope? It is, as others have said, deeply worrying to see the scenes of unrest that have followed this incident. We know that there are national pressures on police resources, so can the Home Secretary tell the House how long mutual aid will continue, and can she say something about the support given to the other forces that are losing resource under mutual aid arrangements? Given the apparent links, is she confident that her reforms will give the police and the National Crime Agency the resources and powers they need to tackle the scourge of organised crime that impacts not only Middlesbrough but so many communities across our country?
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place with his message of optimism, hope and change for water, climate change and procurement. On procurement, may I be presumptuous and give him a quick win? We can remove Palantir from the federated data platform in the NHS and replace it with a Greater Manchester model that works today and supplies more than Palantir does or ever can. That is an easy win.
T7. I have heard at first hand from many Palestinian business owners how illegal Israeli settlements ruin lives and disproportionately impact women and girls. I have received hundreds of emails from my Chelmsford constituents demanding comprehensive Government action. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore reassure my constituents and pledge that any trade ban will include services and investments?
I know that the Prime Minister is a huge advocate for the combined authority system of devolution. I have good news for him: all of London’s 32 boroughs called for exactly that in London, in a rare cross-party call last year. In the spirit of cross-party working, and to apply his experience from Manchester to the rest of the UK—as he has said that he wishes to do—will he reshape London’s devolution settlement by at last giving London boroughs a seat at the table when making decisions with the mayor?
I was encouraged to hear the Prime Minister talk about his support for political reform and, indeed, looking at the voting system, but can I push him to be a tiny bit more specific? He could bring in a change to the voting system ahead of the next general election if he wanted to—we would strongly back him—but if he does not want to do that, will he at least commit to kicking off a national commission on electoral reform?
The sovereign grant does not provide personal income for the King, the Queen or any member of the royal family. It funds the work of the institution, and the largest part of it funds buildings. Between 2025 and 2026, £67.5 million went on property maintenance alone, including the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme and the installation of more energy-efficient heating. These are heritage sites carrying a maintenance backlog that has built up over decades, and the purpose of the reservicing work is to stop a serious risk of fire and flood. We should, of course, take the action that is needed to protect these national heritage assets. The grant is also funding green infrastructure across the estate and better cyber-security, which, in the current international climate, is not an optional extra for any national institution. However, we should treat the increase as temporary in nature, and it is right that the sovereign grant will be readjusted once those projects have been completed. The Government have already committed to legislating for exactly that when the reservicing works finish. That brings me to a key issue: transparency. The taxpayer is funding this grant. Taxpayers are entitled to see where their money goes, and as the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) has already mentioned, Parliament is entitled to hold the Government and the Treasury to account for it. Some of that framework already exists, and it works. Under the Sovereign Grant Act, the royal household’s accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and laid before this House, and the royal household sits within the National Audit Office’s value-for-money remit. But that is not the whole picture. We have an institution spending more than £130 million of public money a year, and its published accounts are the beginning and end of what the public can ask for. If one of my Hazel Grove constituents wants to know how a figure in the report came to be, there is no route for them to find out. May I encourage the Minister to let us know whether he has any plans to review the reporting requirements attached to the grant, so that Parliament and the public get spending detail at a level that allows genuine scrutiny? It is right that taxpayers will have questions about where and, importantly, whom this money goes to. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor holds no title, no office and no public role; as far as the state is concerned, he is a private citizen. As such, not a penny of this grant should reach him. Neither should any other taxpayer funding, and that has to include what happens at the end of his life. Frequently, members of the royal family have received publicly funded funerals, having either ceremonial funerals or state funerals. For context, the Queen Mother’s ceremonial funeral in 2002 cost more than £5.4 million, of which £4.3 million was spent on policing. Can the Minister confirm that no public money from the sovereign grant or any departmental budget will fund a ceremonial funeral, a lying-in-state or state honours of any kind for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor?
My mum and I survived domestic abuse when I was a child, but today many victims are petrified about their own survival in the light of the early release scheme. I know the Prime Minister has already excluded perpetrators of some offences from that scheme and pulled out the stops there, but what stops will he pull out to further protect victims of domestic abuse?
As the Prime Minister looks ahead to what is predicted to be one of the wettest winters on record, my constituents are expecting more of the same: Southern Water pumping sewage into our precious chalk stream, the River Lavant, which feeds directly into Chichester harbour. What does he believe is an acceptable timescale to get to grips with the water industry and regulate it properly, rather than a review that has delayed everything and is limited in scope?
The Justice Secretary knows that the chaos and uncertainty for victims and their loved ones over the summer months from the handling of this scheme have been unforgivable. The Government have changed course countless times, leaving PC Andrew Harper’s family and countless others without the certainty that they deserve. The reality, as we all agree, is that in a properly functioning justice system, no victim or loved one should ever be told that their perpetrator is being released earlier than they were told when that sentence was handed down. However, if tough decisions have to be made, they have to be made carefully, sensitively and preparedly, with the safety of victims, loved ones and the public front of mind. How, therefore, will the Justice Secretary be communicating these—I hope—final changes to those who received the generic letters, including victims of grooming gangs and sexual abuse, earlier this year, and will those letters be tailored to each victim? He mentioned in his statement those who are not in the victim contact scheme and an effort by the MOJ to contact them. Can he please provide an assessment of how many victims he thinks that is, and how much resource he will be given to try to track them down? The reality for the new Justice Secretary is that his inheritance is now a public safety crisis. If probation staff go ahead with strike action, as threatened last month, is he confident that the system can safely manage the risks of releasing thousands of extra offenders? This has all the hallmarks of a national emergency waiting to happen, yet where is the emergency response? Can he explain why the national Criminal Justice Board has not met all year, despite these changes being discussed last year as part of the Sentencing Act, and will he now convene Cobra to give the situation the gravitas it deserves? The prison capacity crisis is one that this Government inherited two years ago, but they now own the response. As highlighted by the chief executive of the Howard League, we are “one major incident away from a disaster.” Prisons such as Wandsworth have been operating at 62% above their intended built capacity as the new normal, creating dangerous conditions that undermine any effort to rehabilitate offenders. What confidence can the Justice Secretary provide that he can deliver this increase in capacity on time, given past failings to do so, and that he can adequately staff it?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on leading today’s important debate and for setting out comprehensively, but also succinctly—I am very grateful for that—why we are here debating SLAPPs. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on originally securing today’s debate. Our justice system was built on the principle of fair and equal treatment for all who go through it. It should not be a tool for the rich and powerful to systematically silence accusers and avoid accountability, but the growing use of SLAPPs makes it abundantly clear that the system is in fact tilted towards those who harness power or wealth. Victims, journalists, academics, whistleblowers and many more, all attempting to speak truth to power, are being silenced by mechanisms within the justice system that are being weaponised and abused. Those mechanisms are not intended to protect these rich and powerful individuals but are doing just that and preventing access to justice. Lawsuits and threats with immense financial implications and additional time constraints are being used to intimidate and coerce individuals into stepping out of the legal system and stopping their actions. They are keeping cases of immense importance and significance to the public out of the courts, undermining the fair and equitable justice system that we should all strive to achieve. I know many today have been supported by the work of the Anti-SLAPP Coalition, which has done so much to expose these cases and push for the legislative changes that are necessary. The coalition has reported spikes in the number of cases sent to it in recent years, blaming an environment in the UK that is claimant friendly and in favour of those suing. That is not something that we should be proud of. Of course, there have been high-profile cases that have come to light, and some have been alluded to today. Mohamed al-Fayed, the Horizon scandal and Grenfell all provide serious regrets, and attempts to bring those scandals to light were continually blocked from the courts, elongating the pain of their victims and meaning that many never saw justice served at all. One case provided by the Anti-SLAPP Coalition illustrates many of these issues. It is the case of Heidi who, having contracted a building firm to carry out an extension of her home, became concerned about the quality of the work carried out. She terminated the work, but having taken a six-figure loss, made a complaint to the trading standards authority. She was informed that she would need other cases to take the case forward, which she then requested on social media. Having done that, Heidi was challenged by the building company’s lawyers with a letter stating that her actions amounted to harassment, defamation and malicious falsehood and falsely questioning her legal qualifications. It is very similar to a case brought to me by a gentleman connected to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition, who spoke to me about the intense level of legal correspondence he received from an estate management company that he had accused of poor service and mismanagement. He had created a Facebook group not just for that estate management company but to find other cases of estate management companies that had been failing their residents. He was relentlessly pursued by the estate management company’s legal team, with letters insisting that he remove the group or he would face legal action. There is also the harrowing case study that was covered by the BBC’s “Woman’s Hour” of a clinic that performed plastic surgery. Having encouraged customers to leave reviews on its website and on Trustpilot, the clinic had its lawyers pursue legal action against at least five individuals who dared to write negative reviews of its service. Those reviews related to legitimate concerns about the quality of treatment provided by the clinic, yet the customers were pursued with vigour—threatening legal action of taking individuals to court and defamation claims of thousands of pounds. One woman said that she hid the whole case from her husband for fear of losing their family home. She felt totally silenced by this plastic surgery company that was threatening to take away her home. It resulted in a number of the individuals removing their completely legitimate concerns about their treatment from the online forums. All of these cases highlight situations arising up and down the country in which the legal system is being used to intimidate and to scare individuals into not speaking out—and those are the ones we know about. As many Members have said today, this is just the tip of the iceberg, because a number of people will have folded under the immense pressure and immense amount of money being thrown at them. We do not know how many cases we do not know about. What we need to combat such practices are universal statutory protections to counter SLAPPs in UK law—something eminently achievable, as has been shown in the US and Europe. Currently, well-meaning journalists, whistleblowers, campaigners and victims speaking out on matters of public interest unrelated to economic crime have no legal recourse, and these gaps must be addressed. New legislation should be introduced that ensures equal access to the justice system and does not allow those with vast amounts of money the opportunity to silence victims or those undertaking legitimate scrutiny. That legislation must include a filter mechanism that allows courts to swiftly dispose of SLAPPs; an extension of early dismissal procedures; cost protections for defendants in all SLAPP cases, not just those involving financial crime; and the empowerment of courts to impose financial penalties on those who bring forward abusive SLAPP claims or use SLAPPs relentlessly against multiple claimants. We must also strengthen the regulatory powers of professional standards bodies and ensure that there is robust enforcement against lawyers and law firms that engage in abusive SLAPP litigation, while at the same time improving access to legal advice and support for those facing SLAPP threats. This is a position that the Liberal Democrats have consistently held—we were the only party to support such legislation in our manifesto in 2024—but the point is now clearly recognised across the House. The previous Conservative Government’s amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act provided protections in cases of economic crime, as has this Government’s public recognition of the issues in this area. We have seen two private Members’ Bills in this Session containing anti-SLAPP provisions, including one due to be presented by the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) in November. Will the Minister confirm the Government’s position on those two private Members’ Bills and whether it is the Government’s intention to support them in their passage through the House? Could she outline what conversations she is having or planning to have with the legal profession to stamp out these sorts of practices? The current context, the attention and the support across the House demonstrate that the time is right to take steps to protect victims and protect the chance of equitable justice. That will only happen with legislation that stamps out malpractice as early as possible, avoiding extortionate costs for victims and allowing the truth to finally be heard.
T3. Last month, 12 protesters were arrested in Tbilisi just for displaying a banner criticising Georgian oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, who controls the Georgian Dream Government. The European Union and the United States have taken steps to sanction Mr Ivanishvili. When will the UK Government follow suit?
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s announcement of investment in the Probation Service. Will he lay out what the Government are doing specifically to fix the vetting delays and staff attrition problems that have kept levels broadly stable despite previous investment, and will he commit to a date by which Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will exit prioritisation?
I would just like to ratify and concur with what has been said. The explanatory notes say: “A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.” I agree with the wording and the amendments to the wording, so I am happy to support the instrument.
I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and I welcome his commitment to put power back into the heart of communities through a devolution programme, but in places such as Shropshire, where there is no immediate plan for a combined authority or a mayoral authority to be put in place, people are really worried that we will be left behind. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on his earlier comments and explain when authorities such as Shropshire will get those devolved powers—and, crucially, the resources to go with them—so that they can start turning around the lives of people in places such as North Shropshire?
Over the summer, the national maternity review confirmed what we all feared in Taunton: Musgrove Park hospital’s maternity unit is the most challenging estate in the country. It cannot be right that mums are giving birth in 30° heat, and that staff are fainting when they are looking after them. If that is the most challenging estate in the country, they cannot wait until 2033. Will the Prime Minister please look at moving forward the new maternity unit at Musgrove Park as an urgent priority?
Bridport in my constituency is sometimes referred to as Totnes-lite. Like Totnes, it has a high concentration of independent retailers, tradespeople and small businesses who rely on cash deposits. On average, a small or medium-sized enterprise deposits cash about 25 times a year and withdraws cash about 15 times a year. Groves Nurseries highlights the exact issue that my hon. Friend mentions: how to keep the business open, run a successful operation and drive to the nearest town every time there is a need to deposit or withdraw cash.
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and I welcome him to his place. I associate myself with the condolences that he has sent to the family and friends of the police officers killed on the A66 and with his comments on the disaster on the Nepal-China border. I wished each of the Prime Minister’s predecessors well, but given how that went for them perhaps he would prefer that I did not bother this time. I sincerely hope that he can turn things around, and quickly, because we all know how fed up people are. We hear it all the time. Every year, it gets harder to make ends meet, waiting lists seem to go up, more and more things seem broken, and the populists and extremists are eager to keep things that way so they can profit from it. Everything the Prime Minister has described in his statement would be possible only if we fundamentally change the way we do politics in our country. Growing the economy, cutting the cost of living, fixing our public services, restoring people’s trust: those are things that every new Prime Minister has talked about. Yet they failed because they stuck to a broken political system; a system that makes it impossible to really change things for the better. The reason so much is broken in our country and can never be fixed is partly that our political system concentrates too much power in the wrong hands —in Westminster, in Whitehall and in big multinational companies. I think the Prime Minister gets some of that, judging by what he has been saying. There are so many more problems in our political system: too much power in the hands of social media barons who interfere in our politics and crypto billionaires who use donations to buy influence; and too little power in the hands of our people. Britain’s political system too often rewards corruption and leaves everyone else feeling powerless. Our great country is being held back, and it will only be free to thrive again if we put real power in people’s hands. We have been campaigning on that for decades and the Prime Minister has written about it. His decision over the summer to finally start cross-party talks on social care—talks I have been desperate to start for years and which Conservative and Labour Prime Ministers promised but failed to deliver—is a welcome step in the right direction. There is, however, a lot more work to do, and more fundamental change is needed to make our politics work for the people we serve. Will the Prime Minister start that work today? Listening to the calls of over 170 Members on the Opposition Benches and on his own, will he launch a national commission to change politics so that we can fix our country?
We know that food security is part of national security, and it has been another tough year for agriculture, with a record wet winter and now a record hot summer. We also have bluetongue disease going through livestock—when I was at vet school, that was a disease of northern Africa and southern Europe—which has spread through Europe to the UK and now to Scotland because of climate change. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is hugely irresponsible and scientifically ignorant for the Leader of the Opposition to ban Conservative candidates who believe in taking serious action to tackle climate change from standing at the next general election?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. When Dad died a few years ago, I was able to go with Mum to our local bank branch to deal with all the issues that come from a bereavement. Subsequently, Barclays has closed that branch in Ely and its branch in Newmarket. That means that the residents of Ely and East Cambs no longer have that facility available to them. I am grateful that Barclays has opened a hub in Ely, but it does not provide all the services that a bank used to. I have a lot of farmers in my constituency. They need a bank branch that understands their business, the ebb and flow of their cash flow, and, in a summer like this one, the extra pressures that their businesses are under. We heard from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) that when he came back from Spain he was able to deposit a cheque online. Community groups cannot do that. As they have two signatories, they have to go to a bank or post office to deposit cheques. I heard on Sunday from someone who had gone in to pay some cash from his community group. The post office refused to take the Scottish notes, as many of my Scottish colleagues will have experienced, no doubt—that is a problem as well. As we have heard from everyone, Link just looks at access to cash. That is not the real problem any more; it is about access to that wide range of banking services.
I agree. As we have heard already, bank scams are a real nightmare for people. If people can go into their local branch and talk to people who know them, they are much better protected against online scams. I am afraid that we have basically advised my mum not to do online banking, and not to click on any links, unless one of us is with her, because there is too much risk. If there were a local branch, things would be so much better. I call on the Minister to seriously consider widening Link’s remit so that it looks at the wider range of banking services and we can keep them in our various constituencies.
Will the hon. Member give way?
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a district councillor on East Cambridgeshire district council. One of the other big problems for this proposed Mid Cambridgeshire unitary is that it will have most of the soil-affected roads in Cambridgeshire, which are really expensive to maintain, and most of the internal drainage boards, which need significant funding to keep our market towns and villages dry so that people can live in them. It will be a very challenging unitary to run financially.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) for securing this important debate and for making it a large enough subject for us all to pick and choose, because it is hard to cover such an enormous range. It is much appreciated. I thank him for such good points made, and I thank the Minister for returning to her role. I look forward to working with her. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my ownership stake in BDA Partners, the business I founded in 1996, which focuses on Asian mergers and acquisitions, in which I have no management role. Everybody here believes that our financial services sector is a strategically important national asset and a key competitive advantage for our economy. We all want the sector to continue to thrive, boosting businesses, jobs and growth all across the UK. We all want Britain’s financial and professional services industry to remain possibly the leading such services cluster globally. Such services make us a trade superpower. We benefit from our unique combination of language, law and location. We have strong institutions and dynamic markets. We are the world’s second largest destination for fintech investment after the US, and we are a material player in the AI space. Those are huge strengths that we must continue to build on, but we must also be clear about the challenges. Our financial services sector has lost ground on a relative basis and on a global basis. Other economies are rapidly growing, innovating, investing and preparing for the future. We have no cause for complacency. We need to be ambitious and take decisions now, which will help the UK over the short, medium and long term. Post Brexit, the City has continued to be an excellent location to base a global financial services business. However, our departure from the EU has substantially weakened our financial services industry, both in terms of the UK serving as the centre of European finance and a slower-growing UK economy that has not provided the traditional tailwind that it previously did. UK financial services remain a bright spot, but it would be a lot brighter if we were inside the EU’s single market. Do not just take that from me. TheCityUK notes that even though overall services trade has held up, “Exports of financial services have declined 5.9 per cent…likely at least in part due to the impact of Brexit frictions.” If the Government are serious about growth, they need to fix this. We should be pursuing a growth and defence partnership with Europe, including joining both the single market and the customs union. That would be revolutionary for the future of the UK financial services sector; it would tear down the barriers to trade in services that we have erected, which are still holding back our financial sector. In particular, joining the single market would secure again passporting rights for the sector, reducing costs and administration burdens and enabling financial firms to offer services across the whole of the EU without requiring further authorisations. In the shorter term, the Government should move quickly to immediately improve financial services co-operation with Europe. For example, they should be making the most of the UK-EU financial regulatory forum to secure a deal on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, building on the dialogue that was agreed at the UK-EU reset last May. We must also finally see the UK-EU youth mobility scheme, which was agreed in principle last year, through to implementation. Secondly, if the Government are going to boost financial services and seriously compete with the US, they must look at the business landscape as a whole. We need far more ambition to boost UK plc—especially our high-growth, high-tech businesses—and pull every available lever to encourage capital formation, so how can we do this? Traditionally, the UK has been a fantastic harbour for international capital on the back of a cast-iron reputation for strong, fair regulation that safeguards investor rights. We need to ensure that our regulators continue to live up to that benchmark, and I think there is a question about that today. The same goes for competition. The Competition and Markets Authority needs to be using its powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 to demonstrate it has the will to enforce both quickly and effectively against strong players as well as weaker ones and, where applicable, it should be working closely with its EU counterpart to magnify its impact. This is not an issue that is just floating in the ether; it matters to people across my constituency, because it brings down costs. Everybody talks about the cost of living; if we allow people to control markets so that there is no competition, costs go up, and everybody feels that in their pockets. It is really important to draw that link, so having the CMA move fast, at scale and at speed matters. We also need to fix how we support business innovation. Research and development tax reliefs are a powerful tool, but too often they are undermined by uncertainty, delays and a “compliance first” mindset. A more liberal, pro-innovation approach should move towards an expert-led pre-clearance system for R&D tax reliefs. We could have up-front assessments by scientists and engineers—people who understand the technology—rather than retrospective scrutiny by compliance teams. Models in countries like the Netherlands show that this can work effectively. It provides certainty to the founders, reduces disputes, and ensures support is directed towards genuine innovation. We must also look at reducing regulation where it is not required, as the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) mentioned. For example, why is the regulatory burden on the venture capital industry so much higher in the UK than in the US, including in terms of time, which is as critical as cost? How about the UK taking the approach of using exempt reporting advisers—as they do in the US, focused on professional investors—to more effectively balance regulation with levels of risk? Many Members have talked about AI, and I am going to do so too. Any discussion of the future of financial services has to take AI into account. Earlier today, the Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, published an open letter warning G20 Finance Ministers that artificial intelligence could pose a major cyber-security risk to financial systems. Writing in his capacity as chair of the international Financial Stability Board, he said that the potential impact of frontier AI is “the most immediate concern” for the global financial system, and that financial institutions, financial market infrastructures, and technology providers all need to “strengthen vulnerability management, response and recovery capabilities, and prepare for more severe scenarios involving simultaneous disruption across multiple firms or shared technology dependencies.” These risks are inherently international, and many jurisdictions still lack the systems to manage them—frankly, I think we do too. The UK Government must make AI security a top priority to safeguard not just UK financial services but the international financial markets on which we all depend. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could set out what steps the Government are taking to promote the safe and responsible deployment of AI internationally, and how the cyber-security of the financial system is being strengthened. The other technological revolution that will shape the future of financial services is digital assets, stablecoins and cryptocurrency. A few days ago, the Treasury gave the Bank of England the new objective of supporting payment systems innovation. That is welcome, and having the right regulatory conditions in place to make the most of digital innovations is critical, but we need more clarity from the Government about how they intend to balance the opportunities and risks generated by new digital assets. A key question is what stance the Government intend to take on stablecoins and a central bank digital currency or digital pound. The global stablecoin ecosystem is now dominated by two US dollar-pegged issuers, Tether and Circle, which together account for around 90% of the market. The UK’s own GBP stablecoin is, per the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee’s assessment, “nascent”. Many are therefore worried that the digital financial infrastructure of the future is likely to default to dollar-denominated instruments issued by foreign private firms. I urge the Minister to address those concerns clearly, and to set out how this Government plan to make the most of the opportunities presented by this new technology while safeguarding against the risk and, crucially, whether there is or will be a timeline for a decision to be made jointly with the Bank of England.
I beg to move, That this House has considered the provision of face-to-face banking services in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. Banking services in rural areas have been decimated. While big banks make billions in profits, they close branches with impunity, turning their backs on customers and leaving small businesses struggling with the impact. Last year, Lloyds reported a £6.7 billion pre-tax profit and yet in the same period it shut 218 branches, with a further 95 to close this year. Sixty-four per cent of all bank and building society branches that were open in January 2015 have closed in the past 10 years, numbering more than 6,000. In my constituency, which covers about 450 square miles, we have one bank branch left, and I wonder how long that will be there.
I will get to banking hubs in just a minute. Why do we allow closures to happen? Why do the Government not act with urgency to turn around the decimation in rural banking, which has the biggest impact on the most vulnerable people—the elderly, the disabled—those who cannot use online services and areas where digital connectivity is so bad that using online services can literally be impossible? It is simply outrageous that banks have been able to get away with this to such an extent and at such speed. I call on the Labour Government to address the issue with urgency. People still want to use in-person banking services, even young people and those who already bank online: 81% of UK adults say that they have accessed in-person banking services at least once in the past two years, while 48% say they have accessed in-person banking services every month. It is simply not true that everyone is happy to bank online all the time.
I absolutely agree. On my tour this summer, I met someone who was frozen out of her bank. She could not get the confirmation code on her phone because she has no mobile phone signal, so her bank account is now closed to her. She will have to travel more than an hour to get to a bank to get back into her bank account. It is an absolute mess. Face-to-face banking is simply essential for millions of people and thousands of small businesses across the UK. When a loved one has died and finances have to be sorted out, it is normal to want to speak to another human being, not to a chatbot. People might need emergency access to funds, to make a complicated transaction or to send money abroad—out-of-the-ordinary banking matters that chatbots simply do not understand and cannot help with. Businesses might want to take out a loan, or extend or increase borrowing. Yes, people could do that over the phone, but for many a face-to-face conversation is more manageable. The rapid and ruthless shift towards online banking may suit those of us who work odd hours, travel around a lot and would frankly find it hard to pop into our high street branch, but at the same time, it is potentially disenfranchising millions of people from banking services.
I will come on to the legislation passed by the previous Conservative Government in just a minute. In rural areas, poor internet, non-existent public transport and a higher proportion of elderly residents who are less likely to manage their money online mean that losing the local bank can have a huge impact. The wipe-out in rural areas is mind boggling. A staggering 86% of people in rural areas have seen their closest bank branch—which 10 years ago was within a mile—close. For them, there is no alternative bank to switch to. As banks have closed, the impact of losing access to banking services has been disproportionately felt by those in rural areas, who simply cannot go to another bank in town. Instead, they are left navigating sporadic or non-existent public transport, having to set aside half a day for the outing just to visit the bank. It can be a major mission in a community that is poorly serviced.
I could not agree more. We are facing a perfect storm of decimated public transport; appalling digital connectivity that must be addressed, as we repeatedly say in this place; and closure of banking services. Those three make a toxic combination. Consumers and small businesses are frustrated with the service they are left with, as is the case in Totnes in my constituency. In September last year, Lloyds announced it was closing the final bank in town, leaving residents without access to banking services beyond a couple of free ATMs and the post office. It seemed obvious to me that, when Lloyds closed its doors, the remaining banking services in the town would be insufficient and that it would get a banking hub. We have a thriving market once a week, where many people use cash. We have 120 independent high street businesses, an older than average population, very poor digital connectivity and poor public transport to other towns. Not only does the town have 13,500 residents, but thousands more people in surrounding villages use it for banking. The cash access request that I submitted to Link was turned down. I appealed but, to my huge disappointment, Link upheld its original decision, despite my meeting officials from the Treasury and raising the matter with the Prime Minister.
I absolutely want to see that. When Link assesses rural locations, it considers whether alternative access to cash facilities are available within three miles or 30 minutes on public transport. For Totnes, it noted that alternative facilities were available within a 19-minute bus journey—that is on a really good day. But that is only relevant to those who live in the centre of Totnes. If someone starts from one of the many satellite villages that use the bank in Totnes, it is a completely different story. There may not even be a bus to get into Totnes to pick up the other bus to get to Paignton and the bank. The impact on local residents and businesses will be familiar: queues at the post office, which become impossible in the run-up to Christmas; hundreds of extra customers for the post office, which has no extra space or staff to cope; and businesses less keen to accept cash, because the only place they can pay it in is the post office. If someone is running a shop on their own, as I did for six years, it is impossible to shut up shop and go down the road to queue at the post office, because they have to keep the shop open to make money.
I could not agree more. It is really important that we protect access to cash. My residents do not want to feel that they are being forced into a cashless society. Small businesses used to use the bank’s night safe, but that option has now gone.