Emma Reynolds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Supporting Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Defence companies are an incredibly important part of the economy, and the hon. Member will know that we are increasing defence spending to up to 2.6% by the end of this Parliament. It has only ever reached those levels before under a Labour Government.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Supporting Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Half of small businesses will not be affected by the employer national insurance increase, as the hon. Member will know. We will also be setting out a small business strategy in the Government’s plan to support those businesses across the UK later this year.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Supporting Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Kick-starting economic growth in every region and nation is the No. 1 mission of our Government. As part of our new infrastructure strategy, we have allocated £725 billion to building and rebuilding bridges, roads, schools and hospitals across the country. Also, the £2.3 billion for local government transport will benefit places such as Eastleigh and Gloucestershire. In Wales, key rail routes will benefit from £445 million of investment.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman brings me to the meat of my speech, which I must move on to, as I do not have very long left. I always get lulled into a false sense of security in Westminster Hall, where I think I have quite a long time to speak. I made the position very clear on the Floor of the House a couple of weeks ago, when we had a similar debate. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous Government’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, Parliament legislated to protect reasonable access to cash. Specifically, Parliament gave the Financial Conduct Authority new powers to ensure that communities could both withdraw and deposit cash, but that governs only access to cash; it did not include access to in-person banking. The hon. Member asked about the Link criteria, an issue that has been raised in previous debates. The Government do not have the power to amend the assessment criteria. Any decisions on changes to Link’s criteria for access to banking services are an independent matter for Link. As he will know, the set-up of banking hubs is a voluntary initiative by the banks. I visited a very good banking hub in Buckingham that has different community bankers coming in every day of the week, which works extremely well. The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire and others asked whether we are minded to change this situation. We continue to monitor it, and we have heard lots of concerns expressed today. I continue to meet hon. Members, and I have another session next week for those who, if they have not met with me, would like to. Currently, however, the Government are not minded to change the legislation. I am soon to meet John Howells, the chief executive of Link, and I have listened to the concerns of hon. Members, particularly those with rural constituencies, including the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. I think that Link should take into account his point about the different rules for what is rural and what is urban. I am running very low on time, and I am conscious that the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire should be allowed a brief wind-up. I promise to respond in writing to some of the questions asked about the Post Office in the debate.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra); this may be his first Westminster Hall debate, but I am sure it will be the first of many. Can I just say how much I enjoy the debates in Westminster Hall? We often get a bit more time to express opinions, and the Government can give a greater degree of detail than I certainly could in the Backbench Business debate on the Floor of the House a few weeks ago. I thank all the hon. Members present, who have come from beyond Hertfordshire, if my geography is good. I know the beautiful rural areas of Shropshire extremely well because I have family there. When the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) was talking, I could not suppress a smile at his description of the beautiful hills of Shropshire, which is where I spend many of my recesses with my children. My parents live in his constituency, in the beautiful town of Ludlow. I could go on, but I had better stop there. From Shropshire to Strangford and beyond, we have heard perspectives from different parts of the country. I have met many hon. Members who have championed their constituencies and campaigned for banking hubs. It was good to hear from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who is a doughty champion. We have had a number of discussions in private and in the House, as well as in written questions. I know he has real concerns, and is campaigning, particularly, for the banking hub in Cheshunt. It was good to hear from the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), who stressed the importance of rural areas, which I will come back to. The hon. Member for South Shropshire also mentioned that, referring to his 700 miles of beautiful countryside. He also asked about the criteria for the Link assessment, as did other hon. Members. It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He often asks difficult questions on a variety of subjects. The way in which he is able to range across different subjects in the House is really quite impressive. He talked about digital inclusion and exclusion, as did other hon. Members, and I will come back to that. I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper); I met her constituent Derek French, who is a doughty campaigner for access to cash and banking. I pay tribute to his work.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the correction. I would not like to get in trouble with the hon. Members that represent different parts of Hertfordshire, not least our Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), who also represents a constituency there. I have better knowledge of Buckinghamshire, which is nearby, but I thank her for that correction to the record. I do not want to get in trouble with the hon. Lady’s colleague, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), who was very active in our previous debate on this issue. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), for his speech. I will come back to the points that he made in a moment. I also thank, for their interventions, my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the hon. Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). I have met some of them separately to this debate. I thank again the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire—I was going to call him my hon. Friend; the debate feels very friendly. I have looked in detail at his constituency, thanks to his calling this debate, which is always a benefit of having such Westminster Hall debates, as he will attest to. I have had a look at Abbots Langley and Rickmansworth. I often go through his constituency on the way home, particularly the Rickmansworth area. They are very different parts of the constituency, from what I can see, in terms of the scale of the population and the number of shops in those areas. In Abbots Langley, I am told—he can correct me if this is not true—that there has been no community access request, as of our information. So if he does want to campaign for a banking hub there, it is open to him and his colleagues on the council he mentioned to request such a thing. Equally, I know he has an enhanced post office in Rickmansworth. Again, it is open to him or others in the community to make the application so that Link would assess the criteria.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will have to excuse me; I cannot offer letters of support. If I were to do that, there would be a number of letters that I would be writing. The Link assessment is independent and is what the previous Government set up and legislated for, in terms of access to cash. I will come on to that in a moment, if that is okay, and give him some more clarification on that. We need to recognise that the landscape for retail banking has changed significantly in recent years, turbo-charged by the pandemic. For example, last year we had 93% of people with current accounts access their bank online or via a mobile app. That obviously does not include the nan of the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who I have heard about on numerous occasions, but there are lots of people who access their banking in that manner. There has also been a shift among older customers, with 83% of those aged over 75 now using online or mobile banking, compared with just 27% in 2017. That is a marked shift. We know, however, that there are vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and people with disabilities, who very much appreciate and value in-person banking. Branches can act as anchors in a local community and are very important to small businesses, as several hon. Members mentioned, not least the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire. When a high street branch closes, particularly the last branch on the high street, it can be a real blow to an area, especially where the alternatives are limited. That is why the Government, when we were in opposition and formulating our manifesto, secured the industry’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs—that is in totality. I say to the hon. Member for St Albans that that is not a limit, and actually, we are quite far along that journey. We have 230 that have already been agreed, and more than 170 are open. That includes 108 that have been open since the general election, and we are not even a year into our Government. We promised 350 by the end of the Parliament, but we are running much more quickly than that. I hope that we will surpass 350 by the end of the Parliament.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Public Sector Pensions: McCloud Remedy · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this debate. I am grateful for her speech, and agree that the people we are talking about keep us safe and well, and show true dedication to public service. I absolutely understand the point that she is making. I will talk a little bit about the background to McCloud, before talking about the progress that has been made to date and what further steps the scheme managers still need to take, as the hon. Lady outlined. The McCloud remedy is, by its nature, a complex undertaking, as I am sure she will appreciate. It applies to 20 public service pension schemes in the UK, and the scheme managers for those schemes are responsible for ensuring that the remedy is administered properly and in accordance with their statutory provisions. This issue, as the hon. Lady said, arises out of the introduction of new pension schemes for public sector workers in 2014-15. When introducing those pension schemes, the Government at the time gave what is called a transitional protection to older workers, but as she set out, in 2018 the Court of Appeal found that those protections gave rise to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age, race and sex. In 2019, the Government announced that they would address that discrimination through the McCloud remedy. There are two main elements to the remedy. The ongoing difference in treatment between older and younger workers was removed by closing the older pre-2015 pension schemes and moving all active members into the new pension schemes in relation to employment after 31 March 2022. However, addressing the discrimination that occurred between 2014 and 2022 is considerably more complex, as hon. Members will appreciate, because whether individual members are better off under the older legacy schemes or newer reform schemes will depend on their individual employment histories and circumstances, and in some cases will not be certain until they retire. The remedy therefore gives a choice over legacy or reform scheme benefits, which is given at the point of retirement for active and deferred members, and is in the process of being rolled out for members who have already retired. Delivering the remedy to more than 3 million affected scheme members is also an intensive administrative challenge. There are many different elements to it, but the most crucial is that all those affected must be provided with individualised information about their pension entitlements during the 2015 to 2022 remedy period, through what is known as a remediable service statement or RSS. In addition, a smaller group of members, whose tax position during the remedy period may have changed, need to be provided with a remediable pension savings statement—an RPSS. Given the complexity of the McCloud remedy, schemes are also providing significant levels of guidance and online resources to help members understand the information they receive and the decision they need to make. That information is often very complex, as hon. Members know because many have been in the position of receiving it. There is also a dedicated HMRC digital service to allow members receiving an RPSS to understand their tax position. There are processes in place to allow members to pay additional tax or, as will be the case for the majority of members, to claim either a tax refund or compensation from the scheme where a refund is not possible. Providing these statements to members, together with the other aspects of implementing the remedy, is the responsibility, as the hon. Lady will know, of pension scheme managers. For the largest public service schemes, including the NHS scheme in England and Wales, the teachers’ scheme in England and Wales, and the civil service scheme across the UK, the scheme manager is the relevant Secretary of State. The local government, police and fire schemes are administered locally, which means each responsible authority, force or brigade has its own scheme manager, who is responsible for the operation of the scheme in that area. The devolved Administrations—this is pertinent to the concerns raised by the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie)—have responsibility for administering their schemes. The Scottish Government, through the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, have responsibility for the police, fire, NHS and teachers’ schemes in Scotland. The Welsh Government are responsible for the firefighters’ scheme in Wales. Pension schemes in Northern Ireland are established under a separate legal framework and are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government. This means that the picture on implementing the remedy across the different schemes is complex and may be subject to particular factors that affect one scheme but not necessarily another. The remedy itself varies across the schemes, reflecting the fact that the schemes themselves are specific to each workforce and have different benefit designs. This can be seen in the differing levels of progress that schemes have so far made. I am aware that across the police scheme in England and Wales, around 90% of the total number of RSSs have so far been issued, and I understand that the picture is similar in the police scheme in Scotland, with 97% of deferred choice and over three quarters of immediate choice RSSs already issued. Although that is not yet matched by other schemes, significant progress is being made elsewhere. For example, the civil service scheme in England and Wales has issued around 45% of immediate choice RSSs and the teachers’ scheme around 47%. It was always anticipated that providing RSSs to members would be challenging, and that is specifically recognised in the legislation governing the remedy. In particular, the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 sets out that for the provision of RSSs, there is a deadline of 31 March 2025, or—here comes the qualification— “such later day as the scheme manager considers reasonable in all the circumstances in the case of a particular member or a particular class of member”. Given that I was asked about delays, I think it is worth reflecting that hon. Members have raised concerns about their constituents who are experiencing delays in receiving the remedy. I am standing in for the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), but I used to be the Pensions Minister myself, so I have some knowledge of the issue, and I encourage scheme managers to take every step possible to resolve those cases as quickly as possible and to prioritise cases where individuals may be in particular need. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West reflected on a number of such cases in her excellent contribution. I assure anybody in this position that where there is an uplift in interest on pension payments, interest will be paid on arrears, so they will not lose out financially as a result of the delays, but I do understand that the delays are frustrating. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the overarching principle of the McCloud remedy is to put people back in the situation they would have been in if the discrimination had not occurred. In order to do that, it is necessary to apply interest where payments should have been made at an earlier date, whether by the scheme or the member. In this debate, we have heard more about the delays of the scheme towards the member. Interest is applied at 8% when the scheme owes money to the member. Where the member owes money to the scheme, interest is applied at the NS&I direct saver rate, which is currently 3.5%. I hope that reassures the hon. Lady to a certain extent. We think it is right that these decisions are made by scheme managers, as they are the only ones with full possession of all the relevant information. As I have said, with that information and the variety of different factors, the situation is complex. Having said that, the Government are committed to ensuring that all affected members are provided with the remedy they deserve as quickly as possible, including ensuring that members already in receipt of pension benefits or approaching their retirement are prioritised. Where scheme managers have exercised their statutory discretion to extend the deadline for providing some members with an RSS, it is therefore important that appropriate new deadlines are set out and that robust plans are in place to ensure the new deadlines are met. Scheme managers must ensure that the plans are properly communicated to pension scheme members to provide them with certainty. The Pensions Regulator must also be kept informed of plans and progress, and I know that schemes have been having these discussions with the regulator. Similarly, there have been delays in other aspects of the remedy, such as the provision of the RPSSs to those who need them. As I set out earlier, that affects a smaller number of people. However, it is difficult for those people if they are kept waiting. It is important that schemes keep members informed and provide them with appropriate resources and support. Although I am pleased to say that the process of sending out RPSSs in England and Wales is 90% complete and that some schemes have sent them to all affected members, I know that there are issues in other parts of the country. As I said, this is a very complex area. If I have not answered all of the hon. Lady’s questions, I am happy to write to her. Given the importance of delivering the McCloud remedy effectively, the Pensions Minister has recently written to responsible Departments, requesting details of their plans to issue remaining RSSs and RPSSs to all affected members. All those affected by the McCloud remedy can be assured that a robust and complete statutory remedy has been put in place and that schemes are working to ensure that members receive the information and support they need. I do, though, note the points that the hon. Lady has made about the impact of the delays on her constituents. They will have the opportunity to decide whether to receive legacy or reform scheme benefits in relation to their service. I again thank the hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House. Question put and agreed to.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to thank and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on bringing forward this important debate, which was heavily subscribed across the House. He highlighted the needs of his constituents, particularly the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled. My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), and the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) all stressed the importance of in-person services, particularly for vulnerable constituents. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing banking hubs in their constituencies— in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, two banking hubs are soon to open, as I understand it. Other Members spoke about their campaigns to secure banking hubs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin)—who is apparently expecting a call from one such bank— and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of access to cash and banking services in rural areas.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Bank Closures and Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have very long left, I am afraid. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly stressed the importance of these services in urban areas as well. I will not go through all of them, but we heard lots of really good speeches on both sides of the House and a surprising degree of consensus, which is not always the case. It is interesting to see the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington so closely aligned, which is not something I expected. Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the last Government legislated to protect reasonable access to cash, giving the Financial Conduct Authority new powers to ensure that communities could both withdraw and deposit cash. The Government recognise that the ability to access cash and in-person banking support remains essential for many, particularly in rural areas and for vulnerable people, which is why we have secured the industry’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament, ensuring that access to face-to-face banking is protected. Over 220 have been agreed, and more than 160 are open. Banking hubs are a voluntary initiative by banks as part of meeting their access to cash obligations, as legislated for in FSMA. Many Members have asked the Government to demand that Link reviews its assessment procedure, but it is worth reminding colleagues that the process for deciding where hubs are needed is independently determined by Link, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network. The Government are not minded to review the legislation passed by the previous Government. A number of Members—including the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who mentioned this to me yesterday as well—talked about ATMs’ lack of reliability. I have done a little bit of work on that, and Link assures me that it takes a hard line with its members over the functionality of ATMs. However, I urge Members to raise these issues with me, so that I can raise them with Link. I am soon to meet John Howells, the chief executive of Link, and I will feed back the concerns that Members have raised today about how Link applies its criteria. I know that this is not necessarily the conclusion to the speech that Members were hoping for, but we think it is important that local communities have access to cash and banking services, which is why our Government are committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the country.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful for the Committee’s time this afternoon. Financial services fulfil a vital role for people and businesses across the UK. The Government are committed to ensuring high standards of both consumer protection and financial inclusion. The regulations form part of that commitment by strengthening protections for customers, including individual consumers, businesses and charities, when their bank accounts or other payment services are terminated by their provider. While terminations of services are generally considered commercial decisions, customers must be treated fairly. Concerns have been raised in that area over recent years, including concerns about services being terminated on the basis of customers’ lawful beliefs and political opinions. The Government are unequivocal that customers should not see payment services terminated on grounds relating to their lawful freedom of expression. There are clear protections in law that already prohibit providers from discriminating against UK consumers based on protected characteristics and their lawful beliefs and political opinions. However, in other areas, existing legislation does not always provide appropriate protection and is not sufficiently clear. Currently, payments legislation contains no obligation on providers to explain why they are terminating services, and the existing two-month notice period is not always long enough, meaning that customers do not have the information and time they need to understand providers’ decisions, rectify issues or make a complaint. The statutory instrument before us today addresses those issues. It would increase the amount of notice that providers must give to at least 90 days and introduce a new requirement that customers be given an explanation that is sufficiently detailed and specific for them to understand why the contract for their payment service is being terminated. Providers would also be required to advise customers on how they can make a complaint to their provider and on any right they may have to take their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The SI clarifies ambiguities in existing legislation to ensure that the new rules are applied consistently. There are some exceptions to the new requirements in the SI, as Members will see, mainly so that providers can continue to meet their other legal requirements. The strengthened rules would take effect from 28 April 2026 and apply to the termination of payment services contracts that are concluded for an indefinite period and entered into on or after that date. The regulations would make crucial changes that would ensure that customers are treated fairly while respecting providers’ rights to make commercial decisions. The reforms will increase transparency, ensuring that customers understand providers’ decisions and have the time and information they need to bring a complaint or find an alternative provider. I thank the Committee for its attention and welcome any questions from the shadow Minister or other Members.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry; could the hon. Gentleman remind me of the specific question?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It started so well—I am slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman. On one hand he says it is as though nothing changed, and did we need a general election to get to this point? On the other hand he calls into question the provisions of the SI and what impact they might have. I will come to his questions in turn. First, there has been a big change since the election. I was not here in the last Parliament, so there has been a welcome change from my point of view and on the Labour side of the House, where we have a quite hefty majority, in case he had not noticed. The reforms were consulted on and thought about in the last Government—the hon. Gentleman was right to make that point. We consider, as did the previous incumbents in my role and the Conservatives in government, that the current notice period of 60 days is simply not adequate for customers who have their accounts closed to either make a complaint or seek an alternative provision, and that is bad for individual customers, but particularly bad for businesses. As he set out, it is crucial that businesses and individual customers have access to bank accounts. We do not think, although I can write to him with more evidence, that this measure will make banks more reluctant to open bank accounts in the first place. The balance that we are striking in this statutory instrument is on the one hand enhanced consumer protection and on the other hand ensuring that we do not place unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on banks and other providers—it is not just about banks; it is about other payment providers, too. We have not included a statutory review clause, but that does not mean that we cannot review the legislation. We do not judge that this provision will make banks more reluctant to open bank accounts for people in the first place. The shadow Minister asked more broadly about access to banking services, which is something that we are monitoring. As he said, that is crucial to both the operation of a business and customers. In our financial inclusion strategy, we are looking at access to banking and the relationship between financial exclusion and digital exclusion. We are doing broader work in this area to understand not only the root causes from providers but why individuals have perhaps had their accounts closed and not sought alternative provision. We are doing broader work on financial provision, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we will produce a strategy by the end of the year on this vital issue. I know that many of my hon. Friends will welcome that, as well as other Members across the House, because financial inclusion is something that we all care about and this Government are very committed to. I believe that I have answered all the questions.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that question. As he will know, changes were brought into force in January 2024 under the previous Government that ensured that domestic PEPs, as they are called, were not deemed to be on the same level of risk as non-domestic PEPs. That SI was introduced under the last Government and FSMA—the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023—committed to bringing forward that legislation. It also committed the FCA to doing a review of so-called PEPs and debanking. That review concluded that banks were not necessarily taking the wrong approach, but it said that there needs to be more proportionate application of rules. Therefore, the FCA will bring forward updated guidance on this issue, and I am happy to write to the shadow Minister in more detail on the timing of that and what will be included. Question put and agreed to.

• 20 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that issue.

• 20 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As we announced in the spring statement, we are looking for options for ISA reform to ensure that we get the balance right between cash and equities. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we understand that cash savings are a vital tool for people and act as a financial buffer for a rainy day.

• 20 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Our Government secured the commitment of the banking industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the country; 200 have already been agreed and over 150 are open. The financial inclusion committee, which I chair, is looking at financial inclusion, including digital banking and ensuring that people have the bank accounts they need.

• 20 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We are in weekly touch with the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates mortgages, and under this Government we have seen four interest rate cuts since the election, which is bringing mortgage rates down for hard-working people across the country.

• 20 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As I said in my previous answer, we have secured the commitment of the industry to open 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. The FCA keeps the access to cash rules under review. As legislated for under the last Government, it has the power to make rules to ensure that there is access to cash across the country.

• 20 May 2025 · Lifetime Mortgages: Support for Older People · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I discuss mortgages with lenders and, indeed, with the Financial Conduct Authority on a weekly basis, and I will ensure that I pass on his comments.

• 20 May 2025 · Lifetime Mortgages: Support for Older People · Hansard source

  More

  Lifetime mortgages have been regulated by the FCA since 2004. Those rules provide robust consumer protections, including requiring lenders to engage and provide tailored support to all their customers.

• 20 May 2025 · Lifetime Mortgages: Support for Older People · Hansard source

  More

  I am really sorry to hear about the circumstances that my hon. Friend’s constituent is facing, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss the issue further. Lifetime mortgages are complex financial products, and I suggest that anyone considering equity release seeks independent financial advice to help ensure those products are suitable for their needs.

• 14 May 2025 · Draft Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. The draft regulations will remove the time limit on the temporary exemption that pension funds have from clearing over-the-counter derivatives contracts, such as interest rate swaps, through a central counterparty. The exemption will continue indefinitely, ending the need for the Government to renew it every two years if they conclude that it is necessary. The draft regulations will help UK pensioners by supporting pension funds’ ability to invest in assets that generate returns for their benefit. Maintaining the exemption is also in line with the Government’s priorities to increase productive investment by pension funds to support economic growth. Central counterparties are a type of financial market infrastructure that firms use to reduce risks when trading on financial markets. They sit between the buyers and sellers of financial instruments, providing assurance that contractual obligations will be fulfilled. They do so by collecting collateral, known as margin, from all their users, which can be used to cover any shortfall if a default occurs. The process of transacting through a CCP is known as clearing. In 2009, G20 countries agreed that certain standard derivatives contracts should be cleared through CCPs to reduce risks in the financial system. In the EU, this was implemented through legislation and is known as the clearing obligation. At the time, it was decided that pension funds should be exempted from the obligation because of the particular challenges that pension funds would face in meeting CCP margin requirements. CCPs require certain types of margin to be posted in cash. Pension funds do not usually hold large cash reserves, as they invest a large majority of their resources in assets such as gilts and corporate bonds to provide returns for pension holders, meaning that meeting the requirement to post margin in cash can be more difficult for pension funds than for other firms. Requiring pension funds to clear their derivatives could cause them to increase their cash holdings, reducing their investment in other assets and their ability to generate returns for future pensioners over the longer term. The UK assimilated the clearing obligation and the exemption into UK domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which was passed under the previous Government. The exemption was initially designed as a temporary measure, but it has since been extended several times. At present, the Government need to lay secondary legislation every two years if they conclude that it is necessary to extend the exemption. The most recent extension was in June 2023, under the previous Government, who noted that “it would be desirable to put in place a longer-term policy approach and remove the need for future temporary extensions”. That is what the draft regulations seek to achieve. The Treasury has since conducted a review of the exemption, working closely with UK financial services regulators and with input gathered from industry stakeholders through a call for evidence, which was launched in November 2023. The review found that requiring pension funds to clear derivatives could bring financial stability benefits, such as reducing counterparty risk, and could enhance resilience to shocks by increasing pension funds’ cash buffers. However, it identified concerns from some market participants that removing the exemption could increase pressure on the liquidity management of pension funds, particularly under stressed market conditions, which could increase risks to financial stability. The review also found strong evidence that pension funds would need to hold more cash and reduce investment in more productive assets if the exemption were removed. That could reduce their returns, with a potential impact on the retirement benefits of future pensioners; it would also be inconsistent with the objectives of the Government’s wider growth reforms, including the pensions investment review, which seeks to unlock new productive investment by pension funds in things like businesses and infrastructure to support economic growth. Overall, the Government concluded that there was clear evidence that removing the exemption would reduce pension funds’ ability to invest in productive assets, and that that could have an adverse effect on the retirement benefits of future pensioners, while the extent to which removing the exemption would generate direct financial stability benefits was very unclear. The Government have decided that, on balance, it is appropriate to maintain the exemption for the longer term. However, we will keep the policy under review, in co-ordination with the financial services regulators. If there are changes to market dynamics or wider Government reforms that have a material impact on the value of mandatory clearing for pension funds, the Government may reassess the issue. The draft regulations will implement that policy decision by removing the time limit on the exemption, preventing it from expiring on 18 June this year, as is currently scheduled. They will also remove the Treasury’s power to extend the exemption by two years at a time if it concludes that that is necessary; as the exemption will have no time limit, that power will obviously no longer be required. Firms will not have to do anything differently as a result of the draft regulations, because they will maintain the status quo. This approach provides longer-term clarity and certainty for market participants on the policy position, which will support planning for their long-term investment strategies. The regulations will maintain this important exemption for the longer term. They will provide certainty for pension funds and will remove the need for the Government to renew the exemption every two years via secondary legislation. They will support pension funds’ ability to generate returns, which fund the retirement benefits of future pensioners, and align with the Government’s objectives to unlock productive investment to support economic growth. I hope that the Committee feels able to support the draft regulations and their objectives; I commend them to the Committee.

• 14 May 2025 · Draft Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank both hon. Members. As I expected, the shadow Minister agrees with the policy of the previous Government. He asked a couple of questions, and I will take them in the wrong order. The shadow Minister is right that there is a very slight difference between ruling clearing out completely and making the exemption permanent, but the outcome, which is what we are focusing on, is exactly the same. We have said that we will keep the policy under review if we need to, but overall we think that a permanent exemption gives the industry a lot more certainty than having to roll the exemption over every couple of years. I hope that that gives him some comfort. In a way, the shadow Minister has answered his own question on divergence from the EU. Our pension systems and the UK defined-benefit market are structurally different from those in other jurisdictions such as the US and the European Union, so we think it entirely appropriate to take a different decision on this issue. The Government are committed to maintaining our high standards of regulation and financial services, including adhering to relevant international standards where appropriate, but we do not think that this will create a divergence that is worrying in any way. I completely concur with the hon. Member for St Albans that the focus should be on pension outcomes. Maintaining the exemption over time will give certainty to those in the industry, so that they can invest, over the longer term, in assets that will produce returns for their members and therefore pay out the defined-benefit pensions that they are contractually obliged to provide for their members. I hope that I have answered all the Committee’s questions. Question put and agreed to.

• 7 May 2025 · Defence Sector Financing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate. I also thank the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions. I am going to embarrass a few people now. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), who is one of my successors in a seat I represented between 2010 and 2019. It was great to hear about the success of Collins Aerospace, which is in that constituency. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), as well as the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), for their interventions. Today’s discussion and the fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer have highlighted the complexities and challenges we face in ensuring that our defence sector is robust enough to protect our national security and support our growth mission, which is the No. 1 mission of this Government. In recent years, the world has been reshaped by global geopolitical instability, including Russia’s aggression and its illegal invasion of Ukraine—a war on our continent—as well as increasing threats from malign actors. This, combined with the challenging economic and fiscal context, makes it essential that we address the barriers to finance in the defence sector, so I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate in Westminster Hall. National security is the first duty of the Government, as highlighted in our plan for change. We have demonstrated our commitment in recent announcements, such as the Prime Minister committing to reach defence spending of 2.5% of GDP from April 2027. As he said at Prime Minister’s questions today, the last time the UK reached that level of spending was under the last Labour Government. Our ambition is to reach 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, as economic and fiscal conditions allow. Given that uplift in defence spending and the challenging fiscal and economic context we find ourselves in, this Government want to ensure that the defence sector contributes to achieving our No. 1 mission of economic growth. The Chancellor reiterated that message at the spring statement, when she announced a package of defence and growth-focused measures. That included the creation of a new organisation, UK Defence Innovation, with the explicit aim of supporting the scale-up of SMEs, start-ups and non-traditional defence suppliers, enabling them to grow and thrive, fostering an innovative defence tech ecosystem and crowding in private capital. As has been discussed in this excellent debate, we have been made aware of a number of financing issues in the defence sector, and I will come on to them shortly. I will first respond to the final part of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, on the proposals for a multilateral defence bank. I thank him for drawing our attention to these proposals, and I thank Rob Murray, the founder of the multilateral Defence, Security and Resilience bank, who has been liaising with the Government and championing this proposal. We recognise the issues that my hon. Friend raised today. We are looking carefully at the proposals and actively discussing with our allies a range of multilateral options. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned the EU, and I should say that we are looking forward to the UK-EU leaders’ summit on 19 May. We welcome the EU’s efforts to bolster Europe’s defence, including the ambitions set out in the ReArm Europe package and the defence White Paper. We have been clear that we are keen to work with EU allies on common challenges to our shared security. The Chancellor discussed this with counterparts at the G20 in February, and we are discussing the shared challenges with our European partners. I cannot comment in detail on those discussions at this time, but we will continue to work together with our European allies on this incredibly important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about some of the spillover effects, and I assure him that the Treasury and the MOD are keen to maximise spillovers and synergies between the civil and military sectors for both economic growth and military reasons. We are considering how to maximise these benefits as we develop the defence industrial strategy. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of issues to do with defence companies’ access to finance, and I welcome the recent meeting he held with our hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) at Guildhall in the City. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry was present at that meeting, as were representatives of the defence sector and a number of trade associations representing the City and financial services. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer brings to this House a great wealth of experience in financial services, from both a firm and a regulatory perspective, so he will know that decisions regarding the provision of financial services to businesses are a commercial matter; banks and insurers need to make an assessment of the relevant risks and conduct appropriate due diligence. However, we are very clear that no company should be denied access to financial services purely on the basis that it works in defence. I encourage all defence firms to read the very helpful guidance published by UK Finance and ADA Group. It is excellent to see the trade associations coming together, working from the different perspectives of the defence sector and finance, to produce that guidance.