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
The Lord Chancellor will know that a substantial proportion of criminals released under Labour’s previous early release scheme have reoffended and are now back in prison, yet his Department refuses to release the exact numbers. Will he commit to releasing that data and, going forward, to release data on the new cohort of early release criminals who reoffend, so that this House can judge the success, or otherwise, of his policies?
May I welcome the Prime Minister to his place and sincerely wish him well for the future? He will know the vital importance of livestock farming to this country. It is pivotal to the North Dorset economy. He will also know that there have been 783 confirmed cases of bluetongue since just 1 July. The cost of vaccination is £3 per sheep and £6 for cattle. What support can the Government give to livestock farmers, who are already hard pressed as a result of a very dry summer and a very wet winter?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank her for the considerable work that she has done to examine how aluminium is collected, recycled and ultimately reprocessed across the country. We know that this is a significant issue. In 2024, 287,000 tonnes of aluminium waste was generated in the UK, of which only 54.7% was recycled. Across its different uses, the aluminium industry contributes an estimated £9.4 billion to the UK economy, supporting sectors all the way from packaging to car manufacturing, energy infrastructure and defence. Of course, the Government have rightly recognised aluminium as a critical material. Aluminium, as has been referenced, is one of the most valuable materials in the household recycling stream, and it is therefore vital that councils have a clear understanding of what they are collecting, what the material is worth and what happens to it when it leaves their possession. If neighbouring local authorities are receiving dramatically different returns from comparable aluminium material, as has been rightly pointed out by the hon. Member and others, why is that the case? It would be very interesting to know whether DEFRA and the Minister are looking at the scale of those differences nationally, as such disparities have been raised throughout the debate. This is also a matter of public confidence. Residents are repeatedly encouraged to recycle—and rightly so—but they believe that what they are doing is having a positive impact on the environment. Surely they are also entitled to know what happens in the recycling process itself. If a council cannot say confidently where the aluminium ultimately goes, how can residents do so? How can elected councillors scrutinise what taxpayers are receiving and whether it is value for money? I hope the Minister agrees that greater transparency is needed throughout the whole system, and I would like to understand what steps the Government are taking to ensure that councils have the information and expertise they need to properly scrutinise the process and ultimately make the right decisions. That leads me on to the second major issue that has been raised in the debate, which is the sheer amount of valuable aluminium scrap that is leaving the United Kingdom. The figures are striking: the UK currently exports almost half the aluminium scrap that it produces, and at the same time, the UK spends around £5 billion importing aluminium. Make UK has warned that the rate of export risks affecting future industrial resilience, and estimates that the domestic aluminium scrap sector may need to grow by around 25% every year to meet the anticipated demand from British industry. To be clear, the Conservatives strongly believe in free trade. Aluminium scrap is traded internationally, and it would be wrong to suggest that every ton of exported scrap represents a policy failure. However, the Government should not ignore the wider strategic consequences when increasingly large quantities of a material that they have designated as critical are leaving the country when demand from British industry is expected to rise. The Government have designated aluminium as critical because it is essential to defence, energy, car manufacturing and other key industries, so it is surely reasonable to ask whether we are retaining enough of our own secondary aluminium to meet our growing requirements. We have British businesses investing in recycling infrastructure right here. British industries are demanding more aluminium, but councils are exporting large quantities of that material abroad. That cannot be right, so I ask the Minister what proportion of exported aluminium could be processed in this country. What assessment have the Government made of the implications of scrap aluminium exports for British industry and manufacturing, and what conversations is DEFRA having with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to ensure our recycling policy and our industrial strategy are pulling in the same direction? That brings me to the extended producer responsibility and packaging. There is huge concern that the sheer cost of Labour’s implementation of these measures is having a detrimental impact. The Office for Budget Responsibility has estimated that EPR will raise around £1.6 billion a year on average over the first five years, but it also recognises DEFRA’s estimation, based on its own information, that EPR is not likely to have a material impact on recycling rates or packaging waste volumes over that period. If businesses are being charged that much, and the cost of those measures is ultimately being passed on to consumers through higher prices, Ministers must be able to show how they are ultimately improving recycling rates in this country. I therefore ask the Minister how much more recycling of aluminium EPR will actually deliver, and how much of that funding will result in better local authority recycling services and decision making. We cannot end up with a system where businesses, consumers and families pay more, but recycling rates ultimately do not move at all. It is vital for the success of EPR that these measures are open and transparent. In aluminium, Britain has an extraordinarily valuable and useful material. It can be recycled time and time again and supports industries that are worth billions of pounds to our economy. The Government themselves have designated it as critical, yet we are still exporting almost half of the aluminium scrap we generate. Local authorities do not always know where the material they collect goes, or where it ultimately ends up. Some appear to be securing dramatically better returns for their aluminium than others, while at the same time, British recycling businesses are investing in capacity and British manufacturers are increasingly needing the very aluminium that those local authorities are allowing to leave this country. That should concern Ministers. The previous Government implemented much of the framework that is in place; the challenge for the current Government is to ensure that that framework works effectively. If businesses are being asked to meet enormous costs through EPR, they must see better recycling rates as a result. If councils are collecting valuable material, taxpayers deserve to know where it goes and whether they are receiving proper value for it, and if aluminium is genuinely a critical resource, Government policy should reflect that reality. We need a system that recycles more; uses that recycled material at home, not necessarily abroad; gives councils better value for money; protects businesses and consumers alike from unnecessary costs; and strengthens British industry. Ministers now need to show that they are capable of meeting that challenge.
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister speak multiple times about his trip to Cornwall, and I hope he enjoyed Exeter services on his way through Devon. It is disappointing that he did not spend more time in rural Devon in particular, because the biggest issue I dealt with over the summer was the Government’s local government reorganisation announcement, which will see a huge rural Devon constituency of 2,200 square miles with just 103 councillors, compared with 220 councillors for three urban centres of about 600 square miles between them. I accept the Prime Minister’s ambition for growth in every postcode, but he mentioned earlier the lack of infrastructure in the south-west. How can that version of local government reorganisation produce growth in every postcode? I urge him to revisit that decision with the Minister responsible, because, quite frankly, constituents across rural Devon are devastated by what it might mean for them.
I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I share her passion for physics, although I make this point objectively: some of the proposed £160 million-plus reduction in funding will reduce the ability of younger people to learn a passion for physics. That is something we can all get together to encourage the Government to look at again.
The issue underlying a lot of this is the £160 million saving. My understanding is that that saving has come about because a previous agreement to match expanding costs for research has been reversed. Perhaps the Minister could tell me, or could ask the relevant Minister to let me know, who took the decision not to match those costs, which has resulted in the need for £160 million of savings.
I agree with many of the hon. Member’s potential solutions to increase investment. Does he agree with the Treasury’s assessment that the Financial Ombudsman Service is not fit for purpose? Does he agree with the Opposition’s suggestions that a new independent body to replace the Financial Ombudsman Service would probably increase legal certainty and encourage investment into the UK?
I welcome the Justice Secretary to his place. This is the Government’s fifth early release policy in just six weeks, since the Prime Minister took office. At every stage we were told that Ministers had no choice but to include dangerous criminals, because the alternative would be the “collapse” of the “entire system”. Now the plan is to stop one group of dangerous criminals leaving prison early by letting a different group of dangerous criminals out instead. The Justice Secretary and the Prime Minister have justified the plan to release IPP prisoners as a matter of principle, but it is no such thing. It is a fag-packet policy written to get them out of this crisis. Last year a Justice Minister rejected it, saying it would “put the public at risk”. Some 1,415 IPP prisoners had to be recalled to prison after release. The Parole Board says that the rest—856 prisoners—are too dangerous to be freed. Despite the new exclusions, many violent criminals will still be released after one third of their sentence. That includes domestic abusers and some paedophiles. The Justice Secretary says that if a domestic abuser breaches the terms of their release, tagging means that probation and the police will be alerted. He said this morning that these are “really good systems”, but most breaches result in no action at all. In fact, the Justice Secretary said this morning that early release is now “business as usual” and will go on for years to come. With that in mind, the Sentencing Act provides no end date to SDS33, so is this a permanent provision? If not, for how long does he think it should last? Can he rule out letting prisoners out even earlier with home detention curfews? Will he publish detailed capacity projections and all relevant data? Will the Justice Secretary give us a timeline and a target for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of the country? What is his plan to overcome barriers to deportation caused by the European convention on human rights, and in particular unqualified rights such as articles 2 and 3? How many cells will be established within the existing estate by the end of 2026, 2027 and 2028? Will he release every IPP prisoner by the end of the Parliament, as suggested in the Ministry of Justice statement on Sunday? Will prisoners who would have received a life sentence, had IPP sentences not existed, remain locked up? Will the Justice Secretary rule out watering down the criteria used by the Parole Board to assess IPP prisoners? And can he confirm that the changes to early release will come through secondary legislation, presenting MPs with a false binary choice and no chance to amend their plan? We have more than 700 fewer prison cells than last year and 1,600 fewer prison officers since the election. No new prisons have been planned or approved by this Government since the election. There are more than 4,000 operational available places and 4,000 more that are certified but out of use because of rules and regulations, officer shortages, and, in the case of Dartmoor prison, levels of radon gas that local residents live with every day. Describing the early release of criminals, a dangerous and irresponsible policy, as “business as usual” is not just an insult to victims, but a dereliction of duty.
Before the Prime Minister responds, let me say that questions need to be super short. Let us keep the responses tight as well, Prime Minister.
I call Chris Vince—and how I have missed him!
For the final and 125th question, I call Gideon Amos.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
I call the Mother of the House.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that I understand how sensitive this topic is, but we have been in the Chamber a long time, and we have other items of business to get to, so please keep questions short and answers just as short.
Order. In order to help me to get every Member in, questions must be just one sentence. I call Caroline Voaden.
Before the statement on Cleveland policing, I should inform the House that charges have been brought against a number of individuals in relation to the fatal collision on the A66 and the house fire in Grangetown. Those cases are now sub judice. It is possible that other charges may be brought. Mr Speaker is granting a full waiver for today, and for future proceedings, to enable discussion on support for the victims and wider issues of concern raised in the context of these incidents. However, I must urge Members not to discuss the details of any individual case. That includes not discussing any motive, or the guilt or innocence of any individual. Members should avoid wider speculation that could be prejudicial in any future criminal trials.
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Can I welcome the Prime Minister to his place at the Dispatch Box and take this, my first opportunity to congratulate him on becoming Prime Minister? He has been in office for 43 days, during which I have learned how he puts the milk in his tea and exactly what he thinks about pork scratchings, but I have not had the pleasure of asking him any questions. We are all grateful that he has finally found time to come to Parliament to answer some. It is only fair to be gentle with someone on their first day at work, so I am only going to ask the Prime Minister a few very simple but very serious questions. I hope that he can provide me with some simple and serious answers. I genuinely wish him well as he seeks to live up to the dignity and importance of the role. I was pleased to see him in Ukraine over the summer, continuing the Conservatives’ world-leading support for Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. That being said, I am also very relieved to see that he has not brought his guitar with him today. His predecessor stood at that Dispatch Box two years ago sounding very triumphant, having just won a landslide victory. What went wrong? Where is he now? Gone. That job is not as easy as it looks from the outside. Labour MPs have not explained why they got rid of him. [Interruption.] They are laughing, but they have not explained it. We on this side of the House understand that the country’s problems will not be solved by lofty promises alone. In the end, the Prime Minister will be judged on what he actually delivers. This is a very different job from being Mayor of Greater Manchester—a job where he did not have to pick winners and losers, make difficult trade-offs, or have to worry about our national security. He does now. A Government’s first and most important duty is keeping the country safe. The last Prime Minister and his Chancellor left an enormous hole in Britain’s defence budget. We know that because the current Chancellor quit as Defence Secretary over that black hole, saying that it could put British troops at risk. He said that there could be an attack by Russia on NATO as soon as 2030, and that not funding the defence investment plan reduces the readiness of our forces. Let me ask the Prime Minister very clearly: will he provide the funding that his own Chancellor said was necessary to keep British troops safe? That means 3% by the end of this decade. Keeping this country safe also means defending our borders. The Prime Minister mentioned boat crossings, but we must be honest: boat crossings have not gone down because of anything that Labour has done. [Interruption.] They have not. We have to be honest. Boat crossings are down across all of Europe, and have been down for much longer. Let us be honest: the problem is still not solved. The Prime Minister will have seen the extraordinary scenes in Ceuta over the summer, in which more than 70,000 people tried to cross into Europe. Many of those people would like to end up in the UK. This is not just a British problem; it is a growing global problem. Even Denmark is starting to send illegal migrants to other countries as a deterrent. That is exactly like the Rwanda scheme that the Conservatives put in place and Labour scrapped. We now hear that the Home Secretary is thinking about reviving a Rwanda-style scheme, so can the Prime Minister tell me—yes or no—if that is the plan? Next, the Prime Minister must keep British people safe from dangerous criminals. It was interesting to hear the comments in his statement about early release. Before the summer, I sat with women who had experienced some of the most horrific crimes imaginable, and the perpetrators of those crimes were about to be let out of prison early. The Prime Minister told those women that it was too difficult to keep their perpetrators in jail. Then he changed his mind. The family of PC Andrew Harper appealed to the Prime Minister not to release his killers early. Again, the Prime Minister told them that it was a non-starter. Then he changed his mind. The Conservatives told the Government to create new spaces in the existing prison estate, and to get foreign-born criminals out of our jails. The Government said that we were wrong, but now they are doing both. The Prime Minister has had five different positions on early release in six weeks, putting the victims through hell with his indecision. Will he now set out a timeline for his promise to get more foreign national prisoners out of British prisons? As well as keeping the country safe, the Prime Minister’s next big challenge will be making people in this country feel richer. The biggest mistake that Labour has made in office so far, and there have been quite a few to choose from, is that it has crushed our economy under the weight of nearly £70 billion in new taxes. The Prime Minister was not here for that, so I will give him the list: the jobs tax, the family farm tax, the family business tax, taxes on pensioners, taxes on workers and taxes on businesses. That is £3,500 a year for every working family. He says that he cares about the cost of living; Labour’s taxes have made that worse. Those taxes have cost people their jobs—thousands of jobs in oil and gas, and thousands of jobs in industry across our country. The recruitment market for new graduates is the worst it has ever been. There are 50% fewer vacancies than last year, which was already the worst on record. If the Prime Minister does not change course, he too, like every other Labour Prime Minister, will leave office with unemployment higher than it was when he came in. Can he guarantee, here and now, on the Floor of the House, that there will be no more tax rises in the autumn Budget? The year is 2026, yet the Prime Minister said in his statement that everything has gone wrong since the 1980s. He is still complaining about Margaret Thatcher. I am 46 years old, Mr Speaker—I may not look it, but I am. He is talking about a woman who became Prime Minister before I was born. He is living in the past, and he wants to take us back to the 1970s. We Conservatives are for the future, not the past. That is the difference between them and us. His ideas are all about more Government control, more spending, more tax and more politicians. The Conservatives want people to keep more of their own money. We want businesses to grow, invest, expand and create more jobs. That is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. His diagnosis is completely wrong. His theory of growth is completely wrong. He thinks that if the Government spend more money, we will all get richer, but that is not how this works. Companies are not leaving our shores because there is not enough government. Another difference between us is in dealing with the ballooning welfare bill. Up and down this country, hard-working people are fed up of going to work and paying for their neighbours to sit at home with mild health conditions that do not stop them working. They are fed up of hearing, as we did this summer, that working in Boots is not good for your mental health—ridiculous. We are on the side of those hard-working, fed-up people. I ask the Prime Minister: will he stand up to his Back Benchers in a way that his predecessor never could and cut the benefits bill? It is a simple question. The Prime Minister engineered it so that he could have as long a summer holiday as possible, so he should be ready with some answers. I am even hearing rumours that he does not want to do Prime Minister’s questions next week, but it is my job to ask him serious questions, and it is time for him to start answering. [Interruption.] I know Labour Members do not like hearing the questions, but they are going to hear them. It is my job to speak on behalf of all the people out there who want to know what he has planned, and it is time for him to start answering some serious questions. Governing is hard, but the country needs the Prime Minister to succeed. Where it is in the national interest, I will help him. He may find that Conservative votes come in handy when Labour MPs are too scared to do the right thing. Britain faces many serious challenges to our national and economic security. There are difficult decisions to make, and they will show whether the Prime Minister is serious about governing. On defence, his own Chancellor said that 3% spending was needed to keep British troops safe; now, apparently, he does not believe that. On illegal migration, Labour scrapped the Rwanda scheme; now it appears to be considering a Rwanda-style scheme of its own. On prisons, the Prime Minister said that dangerous criminals could not be exempted from early release, and then he changed his mind. This country cannot afford a Government swerving all over the place. Labour has already tried government by U-turn, and it does not work. If he wants to be different from his predecessor, and wants to live up to the optimistic vision that he is painting, he is going to have to start taking this job seriously. That is not what we heard from the Prime Minister today, but that is what the Conservatives are offering.
In my constituency, 89% of my banks have closed in the last 10 years. Alongside that, this year, Barclays has said that it will withdraw its banking van, which has helped to contribute to the provision of face-to-face banking for my constituents. Does the hon. Lady share my frustration and agree that banks need to do better?
We remain steadfast in our support for the Ukrainian people and in our determination that Putin must not prevail. Russia has responded to Britain’s decision to share Storm Shadow technology with Ukraine by threatening British factories with attacks from so-called unknown sources. Mr Speaker, you will know as well as I do the worry that this will cause for workers and residents in places such as Warton and Samlesbury in Lancashire, and across the country. With Putin continuing to reject meaningful steps towards peace, what formal representations has the Foreign Secretary made to Moscow in response, and what diplomatic action is he co-ordinating with our NATO allies to increase international pressure on Russia?
The Iranian regime is deliberately weaponising the strait of Hormuz, using rockets, drones and sea mines to menace international shipping and to hold the global economy to ransom. Its aggression threatens British vessels, drives up fuel prices, and places our energy, aviation and food supply chains at direct risk. Following the latest American strikes and the Iranian retaliation, will the Minister set out what specific and concrete measures the Government are taking with our international partners to resolve this crisis, restore the safe and sustained passage of commercial shipping, and ensure that Tehran can no longer threaten Britain’s energy security with impunity?
As a local Member, I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, and to every police officer who has worked tirelessly throughout these horrific and tragic events. Our thoughts remain with their families and colleagues. Despite having the highest crime rate in the country, Cleveland received the lowest increase in funding, with our local Labour police and crime commissioner warning of a £2.4 million shortfall. I very much welcome the mutual aid and the funding that has been announced, but will the Home Secretary guarantee that the new funding formula will properly reflect the pressures of serious and organised crime faced by Cleveland, so that this funding does not prove to be merely a sticking plaster?
We in northern Lincolnshire look forward to the Prime Minister’s first visit in his new position. He will find that if he travels by train from Manchester there is an hourly service, but that if he travels from London there is no direct service. The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), and I have been campaigning for 15 years to restore the direct service. If the Prime Minister could give us an early win, it would be a victory for me in 15 years but he could deliver it in 15 weeks. Will he have a word with the Transport Secretary and ask her to have yet another look at providing this service, which I know will be supported by his Parliamentary Private Secretary—the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin)—sat behind him? [Laughter.]
The daughter of one of my constituents was the victim of a knife attack in her own home in 2014. Thankfully, the perpetrator was convicted. He is now charged with another offence—that of rape—and is appearing in court next month. One can imagine the concern of my constituent’s daughter when she received a letter from Victim Support to say that this individual was going to be released. I have written to the Lord Chancellor about the case. I appreciate that he might not have seen the letter, but could he give an assurance that he will look at the case and do all he can to ensure that this individual is not released?
Can I say that I am flattered to be associated with the Prime Minister? It must be mistaken identity—I am not sure if he would be as flattered. I welcome him to the Dispatch Box and back to the House, and I welcome his commitment to Ukraine. I would like some clarity on the defence budget. It seems over the recess—of course, there has been no scrutiny of the Prime Minister and the Government over the recess—that there has been a talking up of the Government’s commitment to spending 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. There has not been as much talk about meeting the 3% target by 2030. Would the Prime Minister like to inform the House and the country, given that his Chancellor, in his previous role as Defence Secretary, said that this country should prepare to be on a war footing?
Thank you for your leadership, Mr Wishart. I welcome the Minister back to her position as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for the second time. It is a great pleasure to see her in her place. Much more importantly, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this important debate. The fact that 25 Back Benchers have contributed illustrates just how important the subject is to our constituents. The debate has also illustrated the fact that the nature of banking in the UK is evolving quite fast. According to data from Finder, just under 30% of adults used online or remote banking in 2006. In 2024, that figure had increased to 88%. It is simply the case that fewer people are using face-to-face banking services, but that does not mean we should get rid of branches altogether. As we have heard, many people still rely on them. We need to strike the right balance between allowing our banking system to evolve with changing consumer habits and protecting those who rely on traditional banking services, such as vulnerable people and local businesses. Before I go further, it is valuable to provide some context to this debate. According to Which?, 6,871 bank branches have closed since 2015, meaning that 69% of branches closed in that period. Which? also found that 56 of our constituencies, from Norwich North to Mid Bedfordshire, are now without a single bank branch, and that 101 constituencies have just one branch left. The South Devon constituency is part of that category, following the recent closure of the Lloyds Bank branch in Totnes. As the hon. Lady set out, the impact on all her constituents, but especially the vulnerable and older constituents she serves, is significant. In the increasingly digital world in which we live, it is easy to forget that many people struggle to use technology. The Government’s own statistics suggest that 1.3 million adults in the UK are deemed to be digitally excluded. Although that has decreased from 6.8 million in 2017, there are still a significant number of people who find the digital alternatives difficult to navigate.
My right hon. Friend raises another big argument that we could have on the issue of rural broadband, but it is worth making the point regarding internet connectivity that I was just coming on to. I know this is as painful in other constituencies as it is in Wyre Forest. According to the financial lives 2024 survey, adults living in rural areas were, “disproportionately more likely to report having poor or no connectivity.” We must also remember that many of our local businesses rely on face-to-face banking services. According to the House of Commons Library, an average small business deposits cash twice a month, withdraws cash once a month and gets change for their cash registers once a month. It is worth bearing in mind that, typically, we have about 3,500 businesses per constituency, so an awful lot of people rely on these services. I remember the impact that was felt in 2015 when HSBC closed the last bank in Bewdley in my constituency; people were utterly dismayed. Happily, the post office stepped in and was able to help resolve the issues, but since then we have now discovered that that the post office is under threat. We are working on it, but it demonstrates the point that things are changing very quickly. There is also a more subtle outcome of a sharp reduction in bank branches: the relationship between a bank and the local economy is being dramatically reduced, which has implications for our wider economy. Local branch managers living in a community, providing banking services to local businesses and understanding local economic opportunities as well as pressures, are well placed to understand the commercial value of a loan application by a local business. That is important. An application for a business loan is usually something that business owners and managers want to get in place as fast as they can, but the reality is that applications for smaller business loans now take an average of nine months to be approved. That is not good for our local economies. Furthermore, banks need to lend money. That is the business they are in. Each loan creates a banking asset. Indeed, 95% of the money in circulation is the result of banks lending it into existence through fractional reserve banking. It is in the interest of both our banks and our economy that they lend, but if it takes too long, others will step in. That can be good, but it can be bad. Private debt is gaining traction alongside private equity. Meanwhile, unregulated loan notes have been central to some recent mis-selling issues at the smaller end of the market. That is not the fault of the banks, but the lack of local banking services opens doors to alternatives, not all of which are properly understood, risk-assessed and regulated. However, we must recognise that banks are businesses. I do not want to be an apologist for banks, but they do provide a very important service, which they have to do in a profitable way. They have to make commercial decisions, and they have to consider the footfall in their branches and the take-up of digital banking.
As I say, I am not an apologist for banks, and I am keen to ensure that we get a balanced argument. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is an awful lot of money, but it all comes down to what should be the right and proportionate response. I do not disagree with her fundamental point, but the question is slightly more complicated. I will give the hon. Lady an example from my constituency. Not so long ago, I went into a branch of Santander. It was a Thursday, and I was banking a cheque. I was the fourth customer that the bank teller had seen that week. It was utterly dismal, and that was in the centre of Kidderminster. The branch was closed the following week. There are issues for banks—whether they should necessarily be opening branches that could get one or two customers coming in a week. There is a balance to be struck. If a branch is not viable, should the bank keep it open? We must look at the other opportunities. The last Conservative Government recognised that and were committed to retaining vital banking services. That is why we provided a system of free and convenient access to banks through the post office branch network, why we introduced protections for access to cash and why we enabled the development of banking hubs through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. I am glad that the Government have continued our positive trajectory, especially through their commitment to 350 new banking hubs by 2030, but I also welcome the independent access to banking services review chaired by Richard Lloyd. We are interested to see its outcomes and recommendations, but would be grateful if the Minister gave us a clue as to when it will report. Decisive Government action could ensure support for underserved communities in good time and mitigate the impact of bank branch closures. This and previous debates on this subject have shown just how much Members support bank branches, especially in rural areas. Members have emphasised how many of their constituents and local businesses still rely on those services, which is especially true in rural areas such as South Devon. It is vital that the Government step up to support communities who lack adequate banking services provision. The publication of the access to banking services review will help to identify the next steps, but many people will be frustrated that the Government are undertaking another review and not taking action. As the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said, people are “impatient for change”. When it comes to this issue, our constituents do not want to wait much longer.
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) for securing this debate. He speaks with great authority, and it is refreshing to hear a positive vision of the financial services sector, especially given his experience working for the London Stock Exchange Group. He raised a number of points, some of which I will deal with in my speech. The hon. Member raised some interesting points that are strongly related. The first was the lack of growth capital and the fact that we are not seeing a huge amount of money invested into the UK by UK pension funds. Companies looking for growth capital seem to go to places such as America, where they can do better. He also talked about the undervaluation of the UK stock market, which is part of that problem, as well as clean energy and the fantastic opportunity it provides for investment in long-term patient capital. It is interesting that, during the passage of the Pension Schemes Act, one complaint thrown up by a very large annuity asset manager was that it wanted to invest in the equity of wind farms, where there is a predictable income because of contracts for difference, but the Pensions Regulator would not allow it because it had to be invested in bonds, which have a more liquid market. Although the Conservatives completely support the Mansion House compact and the Mansion House accord, there is too much stuff getting in the way. We had a long debate on this during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill, now an Act. We are trying to work with the Government on how not just to force more money into the UK equity market, but to clear away the clag that gets in the way of investments. That comes to the point about regulation and the regulatory environment. I will discuss more of the hon. Member’s points in the main thrust of my speech, but I wanted to get that point over early on. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), the financial services sector matters hugely to the UK. It is often described as the engine room of our economy, for two good reasons. The first is that the banking sector provides the plumbing that moves finance around our economy, making sure that money, where it is accumulated through wealth, is distributed to people who need it. The second is our international position: the financial services sector generates 11% of national economic output and contributes £12 in every £100 of tax paid—it pays for a lot of the NHS. As we heard, the sector makes up more than 3% of all jobs in the UK, with 2.5 million people employed in it, and we have the most unicorns in Europe. The sector here is the second-largest asset sector globally, the third-largest insurance market globally and the fifth-largest domestic banking market globally. I could go on, but the point is that the UK is absolutely a world leader in financial services, and we need to continue to be that. It is vital that we get this right. It is worth comparing London to New York. New York is the biggest financial services centre in the world and London is the second biggest, but in New York, 80% of the turnover is driven by the domestic market of America, while just 20% is international; those numbers are reversed in the UK, where 80% of the activity is international. International competitiveness is four times as important for us as it is for those in America. The Conservative party recognises that, and that is why the Leader of the Opposition has promised to deliver a new economic revolution and to create conditions that will allow the financial services sector to innovate, take risks and be an economic powerhouse. Before discussing the future of UK financial services, we need to understand the past. The City of London has been innovating and leading the way for a few hundred years now. The Knights Templar issuing receipts to crusaders for their gold created the first ever bank notes. In the 17th century, Jonathan’s Coffee House—the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley will be familiar with it—was the first to advertise share prices. From there the London stock exchange grew, setting the model for equity ownership the world over. Similarly, Lloyd’s Coffee House created the insurance market that we see today. By continually innovating, the UK led the way for centuries. It is vital that the UK continues that spirit of innovation to maintain its international lead. Although we have enjoyed much success over the years, a recent report by TheCityUK and PwC shows that over the past decade growth has stalled. Technologies such as artificial intelligence and distributed ledger technology are fundamentally rewiring financial market infrastructure, and it is vital that the UK keeps up with the pace of change. Financial services firms are ready to do that, but they need policy makers to create the right conditions and then get out of the way, allowing them to innovate and take advantage of that. That brings me to what we need to do to unlock the future of UK financial services. First, we need to look at regulation in the UK. Although it is important to recognise that the UK’s regulatory and legal frameworks make us an attractive destination—that is really important; our rule of law is vital to this—we believe that the UK has gone too far and that regulation has become too burdensome. Research from TheCityUK suggested that the cost of regulatory compliance across the financial services sector now exceeds £33.9 billion. That represents more than 13% of firms’ annual average operating cost. An interesting number was presented to the Treasury Committee by Nationwide Building Society, which estimated that, as a result of over-regulation by the regulators and over-compliance by their own internal compliance department, their lending book was £35 billion smaller than it would have been, had they been complying with the original rules and regulations. That is an awful lot of money taken out of the economy, getting stuck in one building society—admittedly the biggest one, but none the less, that is an important measure that we need to consider. This money could have been better spent across the whole of the wider sector, but more worryingly, it has affected our international reputation. The chief executive officer of Marsh McLennan said that it cost six times more to comply with regulation in the UK than in any other country it operates in. That does not foster an attractive business environment. Something needs to change. That is why the Conservatives recently announced three policies that would reduce the regulatory burden. First, we would remove the ringfencing on banks. Secondly, we would reduce bank capital requirements. Thirdly, we would replace the Financial Ombudsman Service with a financial adjudication service.
Yes, I can, from having been on the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016, when we looked at creating the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulatory Authority, and, more relevantly, on the parliamentary commission on banking standards. Our report recommended that we introduce the measures in the Davies review, which was bringing ringfencing in. The hon. Member may remember that, at the time, the Liikanen review in the European Union looked at ringfences. The subtle difference between our ringfencing and theirs is that it was described as caging the tigers in Europe and as putting a fence around the deer park in the UK. Our retail banks were ringfenced. The problem we have found is that it has become increasingly complex to operate the regime, and the Europeans did not bring it in; as a result the resolution regime on banks—the recent Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 looked at this—actually means that we now have an awful lot of other stuff in place and do not necessarily need the ringfencing. The problem with ringfencing is that banks end up with a cliff edge, where their customers are traversing from the ringfenced bank to the commercial and investment banks, and it becomes very difficult. Only one bank has managed to satisfy itself that it is okay, and it has set that ringfence limit at £100 million worth of turnover; all other banks have been at the lower end, which is close to £5 million or £10 million in turnover. It is costing us more and becoming less internationally competitive to have a ringfencing regime that other countries did not adopt. When we adopted it we were the first mover, but we were not followed. International competitiveness is the key point, as well as the bank resolution. There are MRELs, bullion bonds and a lot of stuff out there that makes up for that, brought in since the financial crisis. It just looks like we have too much. I hope that answers the question from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). Analysis shows that the annual cost to the UK’s banking sector of ringfencing alone is £1.5 billion. At the same time, reports from industry are clear that ringfencing is duplicated and is not responsible for post-crisis improvements. In 2022, the independent review of ringfencing and proprietary trading said that “the reduction in the implicit government guarantee and progress in ending too-big-to-fail was not found to be attributable to ring-fencing.” We understand that the Government are looking at this, and at reforming the ringfencing regime through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I will be spending a lot of time in the coming months going through the minutiae of banks’ balance sheets—frankly, I find it fascinating; I hope she does too. However, like most of the Bill, while welcome, we feel that the Government are not fully utilising the opportunities that the Bill will provide, and that they could go much further. As I say, I will not delve into too much of the detail because we have a long time to go through all this, but I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley will throw his weight behind the Financial Services and Markets Bill when it comes to the House of Commons. I have a second point on taxation. If we are to unlock the future of UK financial services, the other area we have to look at is the level of taxation. In a world where capital, talent and business activity are highly mobile, the UK needs to remain an attractive place to do business. That is especially important given the international nature of the UK’s markets. While our competitors such as the US have a high domestic focus, the UK is the exact opposite: the London Stock Exchange Group found that more than four fifths of the revenues of FTSE 100 constituents now stem from outside the UK. Despite that, data from across the industry shows that the UK is an outlier when it comes to the level of taxation on our financial services sector. Taking the banks as an example, data from UK Finance and PwC in 2025 suggests that the total tax rate on banks in London is 46.5%, which is significantly higher than in other financial centres such as Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Dublin and New York, as we have already heard. In fact, compared with the US, our banks are paying 60% higher tax than theirs are. Another example is the insurance sector. Data from the Association of British Insurers shows that their membership’s total tax contribution increased by 77% between 2014 and 2024. Analysis suggests that that has mainly been driven by increases in the insurance premium tax.
I will draw my remarks to a close, Mr Twigg—I have been rambling on a bit. I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley again for his words. This has been a very intelligent and thoughtful debate. As I say, the most important point is that we have to be incredibly mindful of our international competitiveness, which is so vital for our country. It is so important that we get this right. If we fail, we may find our descendants sitting in this Chamber in 20 or 30 years’ time, wondering what on earth happened to the UK’s financial services sector. We must get it right.
Has the Minister assessed how much the additional six-month extension will cost the Exchequer?
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, many happy returns. I welcome the Prime Minister to his place, and I welcome his words. In an answer to someone else, he said that he will always demand the highest level of recognition for those who put themselves at risk to keep us safe. I am sure that after six weeks of being Prime Minister he includes in that our amazing armed forces, yet our Northern Ireland veterans face a never-ending process of prosecution, absent any new or compelling evidence. Does he think that our Northern Ireland veterans need more protection? If he does, what will he do about it?
The Prime Minister has spent all summer trying to be all things to all people. My constituents in Broxbourne want the Government to cut wasteful spending, lower taxes and get a grip on our immigration system, which all require tough decisions to be made by the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister choose his left-wing Back Benchers or will he choose the British people?
Does the Secretary of State recognise that the situation that we find ourselves in, in the west bank and Palestine more widely, represents an almost complete failure of British foreign policy in this regard? As a British citizen, one of the most distressing aspects of this conflict, aside from the death, destruction and savagery, has been the sight of British Ministers being sent out to mouth platitudinous condemnations like goldfish, and promise action, only being dragged to take pathetic ineffectual steps by pressure from their own Back Benchers. My question is this: is anything going to change?
The Prime Minister’s warm words about rural and coastal communities will be seen, I am afraid, like the chocolate Freddo bar that he said he could not affect the price of: sweet, but ultimately insubstantial. Similarly, his triple-helix theory of growth is like the purple sweet in Quality Street: largely nuts. We need much more detail, Prime Minister. Rural communities are crying out for help. We need action. We cannot have the Stone Roses’ “Fool’s Gold”.
I am glad that the Prime Minister had a nice tour of the UK over the summer. Had he come to the Isle of Wight, he would have heard about our No. 1 cost of living issue, which is the price of travelling to and from the Isle of Wight. It is astronomical, and it is harming our tourism economy and restricting access to health and education. If he stands by his comments about people power and putting power back into communities, will he at least be open to creating regulatory powers so that we can control the prices levied by private equity companies, put passengers first, and ensure that the Isle of Wight is treated fairly, just like every other community in the UK?
5. What diplomatic steps he is taking to support Ukraine.
The Government rightly champion long-term support for Ukraine and deterrence against Russian aggression, but that diplomatic approach has to be backed up by credible pledges on military capability. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that this Government are committed to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 —something the Chancellor said was essential to defend our country only a few weeks ago?