Lucy Rigby MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a strong point. I am rapidly cutting bits out of my speech, but I will cover as much as I can. Members will know that some hubs offer services that others do not. We have been exploring with the banks how services might be expanded and improved where there is a community need for that to happen. Just last month, I held a roundtable with a large number of banks, Cash Access UK and UK Finance to discuss the services currently provided in banking hubs, including access to printing facilities, which we know are really valued in some communities. Saturday opening hours are another example of the things that were discussed. Overall, that discussion with the banks was about how we improve the functionality of hubs. We also discussed what the industry might be able to do to raise awareness of the location of hubs—which we know in some areas is not as high as it might be—alongside awareness of the services that they offer their customers. I want to spend a second addressing the important points raised about digital exclusion and particular vulnerabilities. Although many people benefit from digital services, the Government of course recognise—this is inherent in the financial inclusion strategy that we published at the end of last year—that many people face real barriers. That is exactly why digital inclusion sat alongside access to banking as a core pillar of the strategy. The financial inclusion strategy includes an industry-led working group on inclusive design to improve accessibility right across financial products— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I was going through some of the changes in the landscape of banking, and will come to a slightly more negative aspect of that, if the right hon. Member will allow me to do so. I hope that will cover the substance of her question. The most recent data from the Financial Conduct Authority shows that over nine in 10 adults banked online or used a mobile app in 2024. We also know, alongside the statistics on digital innovations that I just referred to, that around a quarter of adults carried out banking face-to-face in a branch over the same period. I put that alongside the statistics that the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin referred to about cash usage, which I will not repeat. I make no judgment about why I am a little old school on occasion with my attachment to cash, as she put it, but we know that many of those who still rely on in-person services are older customers and more vulnerable individuals. We also know that many businesses right across this country continue to depend on cash.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  The House will forgive me for not commenting on individual cases, but it is safe to say that I am familiar with the circumstances that my hon. Friend refers to, and I know the urgent nature of some of the issues that she—

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I will.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. In my very best Welsh, I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies)—she is smiling, which makes me think that I may have got that pronunciation ever so slightly wrong—for securing the debate. It is clearly an important topic to her, given the passionate way that she spoke, and to Members, given the number of interventions. I know from my experience, not least in Treasury orals, the correspondence that I get, and the banking hub surgeries that I run in Parliament, how important this issue is to Members right across the House, so I thank her again for securing this very important debate. I also thank those who have made interventions thus far, including the hon. Members for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend raises very important issues, including in relation to Pride in Place. What is so important about this debate and about banking hubs is that there is an interaction between access to cash, and the ability to speak to a bank or a community banker, and the health of our high streets and how people feel about their towns and communities.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way first to the right hon. Gentleman, and then to my hon. Friend.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Right.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to—

• 24 Feb 2026 · Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack).

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps both.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The OBR is, of course, critically important. The best demonstration of why is the hon. Gentleman’s party’s previous Government. He referred consistently to the Chancellor having to repair the public finances, but seemingly with a huge amount of brass neck. He ought to be asking himself why the Chancellor needed to repair the public finances. The answer is of course that after 14 years of his party being in government, the public finances were in dire need of repair. Question put and agreed to . Clause 251 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 252 Data-gathering Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the shadow EST’s interest in these matters. The DL Committee debate to which he referred was indeed an interesting one. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am glad that other Members agree. The matters that the hon. Member and I discussed in that debate included the Financial Conduct Authority’s supervisory powers vis-à-vis qualifying cryptoassets and indeed the definition of qualifying stablecoin. The matters addressed by the clauses are slightly different. I can speak to the definitions, but this is a slightly different context: it is about CARF, the cryptoasset reporting framework. Stablecoins are cryptoassets for the purposes of the legislation. They can be a specified electronic money product: they would meet that definition if they meet the criteria set out in the legislation. If they do, they will be reported under the common standard; if they do not, they will be reportable under the reporting framework. Clarification on these matters has been reflected in HMRC guidance and stems from the OECD FAQs on this area. I could talk about the extent to which tokenised financial products need to be reported under CARF, a position of which those involved with traditional financial products—TradFi, as I believe they are called by those in the game—have been aware for some time. We have engaged extensively with industry and with the OECD on the subject, and this has been reflected in HMRC guidance. Q uestion put and agreed to. Clause 272 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 273 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 274 Stamp duty: piloting of digital service etc Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In 1925?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These clauses introduce the advance tax certainty service for major investment projects, which will be launched in July 2026. The service will provide a binding decision on how the UK’s tax rules will apply to a project before material investment has taken place. Clause 263 will give HMRC the power to issue decisions, known as clearances, about how corporation tax, VAT, stamp duty, PAYE and the construction industry scheme will apply to investors undertaking large investment projects in the UK. The threshold for investors to be accepted into the service is expenditure of £1 billion in the UK over the lifetime of a project. The clause confirms that the person undertaking the project, or a person who controls the project, such as a consortium member, joint venture partner or partner in a partnership that shares control, qualifies as an applicant. Clause 264 sets out the extent to which HMRC is bound to maintain the tax treatment agreed in the clearance for five years, unless material facts change. I should point out that the clearance will not be binding on the customer. The clause binds HMRC against changing its interpretation of the law, but not against a change in case law or the will of Parliament by changes in legislation. Clause 265 simply provides for advance tax clearances issued by HMRC to be extended past the initial five-year period. Clause 266 will provide for modification or revocation of an advance tax clearance issued by HMRC. Clause 267 will ensure that HMRC can request information from customers; it sets out the potential consequences of a clearance being revoked. Clause 268 will allow HMRC to revoke an advance tax clearance and charge a penalty in circumstances in which false or misleading information has been provided. Clause 269 will allow HMRC to publish notices governing the administration of the service. Clause 270 sets out that the Government may make adjustments by statutory instrument to ensure the effective functioning of the service. Finally, clause 271 sets out and defines certain terms used in the advance tax clearance provision. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause will improve the fiscal cycle in support of the Government’s commitment to having one major annual fiscal event. In line with recommendations made by the International Monetary Fund, the Office for Budget Responsibility will now assess the fiscal rules only once per year, at the Budget, when the Government will set out their fiscal strategy. That will help create a more predictable framework and strengthen economic and fiscal stability. The clause will reduce the minimum number of occasions on which the OBR must prepare an assessment of performance against the fiscal rules from two to one in each financial year. That will apply from the current financial year onwards. The OBR will continue to produce two five-year forecasts for the economy and public finances each year, but it will now be required to assess performance against the fiscal rules only at the autumn Budget. The spring forecast will now provide an interim update on the economy and public finances, and the Government will not normally respond with fiscal policy, unless there is a significant change in economic conditions. Where there are small fluctuations between Budgets, it is right that the Government take fiscal decisions in the round only at the Budget. This will in no way impact the Government’s adherence to the fiscal rules, which remain iron-clad. They will continue to be assessed at every Budget and the Government will always meet them. To conclude, these changes, recommended by the IMF, align the fiscal framework with the Government’s commitment to hold a single major annual fiscal event. Taken together with the larger buffer against the fiscal rules at the last Budget, this measure will support stability for households and businesses right across the country.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 253 to 256 amend existing legislation to digitalise and improve the accuracy of tax reporting through HMRC’s Making Tax Digital for income tax programme. Clauses 257 and 258 make changes to enable HMRC to modernise how it communicates with customers digitally. Clauses 253 to 255 amend schedule A1 to the Taxes Management Act 1970 to support new digital record keeping and reporting obligations for sole traders and landlords who pay income tax. Clause 253 is a procedural one. It sets out some exemptions and defines key terms for later regulations. It clarifies that a “relevant person” is an individual with taxable income, a “relevant partnership” includes at least one individual partner, and “relevant activity” refers to business activities that may incur income tax. Clause 254 adds new powers for HMRC to create regulations for exemptions from Making Tax Digital for income tax. It allows HMRC to cancel existing requirements if an exemption is granted after the tax year has started and to issue directions enabling further exemptions. Clause 255 adds new powers for HMRC to make a certain set of regulations. Clause 256 is consequential to changes introduced in clause 255. Clause 257 will allow HMRC to move customers to digital by default more easily, and clause 258 enables HMRC to require digital contact details, such as email addresses or mobile phone numbers, from customers using HMRC digital services at secure digital touchpoints. These changes provide the legislative basis for the Making Tax Digital for income tax programme.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will do exactly that, although hon. Members will have to forgive me because I do not have the notes in front of me. It is right to say that promoter action notices are legal notices that require businesses to stop providing goods or services where those services are used in the promotion of avoidance. Of course, such a notice can be issued only in the case of a breach of a stop notice or if the prohibition on promoting tax avoidance—also included in the Bill—also applies. Question put and agreed to. Clause 156 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 157 to 162 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 163 Certification of promoters Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 252 and schedule 22 introduce new provisions for HMRC to acquire improved data from specific data holders to be used for risk assessment, tax administration and compliance. The improved data will help taxpayers to get their tax right first time while closing the tax gap. First, the clause and schedule will introduce standing reporting obligations, replacing the current manual notices issued to data holders. Secondly, they will increase the frequency and improve the timeliness with which data holders report data, bringing data reporting closer to real time so that HMRC can use it proactively to help customers get their tax right first time. Thirdly, they will standardise the format for how HMRC receives the data, reducing errors and improving efficiency when ingesting it into HMRC systems. Fourthly, they will place obligations on data holders to collect, verify and report specific tax identifiers, such as national insurance numbers, which will help HMRC to improve the amount of data that it can match to existing customer records. Fifthly, they will reform the penalty regime to ensure that data holders comply with their obligations. HMRC thinks that the measure will cost around £50 million to implement; however, the OBR has certified that it will raise £845 million in additional tax revenue from 2028 to 2031.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The impetus behind the series of changes made by these clauses is to implement the corporate tax road map, as the shadow Exchequer Secretary recognises, with the aim of supporting inward investment and helping investors to invest in the UK with confidence. As for the £1 billion threshold, the Government will assess the performance of the service when it has been in operation for one year and will consider lowering the threshold as part of that review. To answer the remainder of the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s questions directly, there is no limit on the number of extensions that can be sought or granted. Once again, he will be thrilled to know that—as is so often my answer to his questions—there is already draft guidance on gov.uk to add to the draft guidance that he has committed to reading this evening. Question put and agreed to. Clause 263 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 264 to 271 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 272 Cryptoasset reporting: users and controlling persons resident in the UK Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Maidenhead raises a series of important points on financial and digital inclusion, which are matters close to my heart. He will have spotted the publication of the financial inclusion strategy a couple of months ago, which I hope contains many measures that he welcomes on the matters he was raising. Older customers and those with certain disabilities are more likely to be digitally excluded or digitally assisted and may be disproportionately reliant on paper correspondence. Safeguards will be included to ensure that those groups can continue accessing paper communications if specifically needed, with a clear and simple opt-out process and ongoing support through non-digital channels. This measure is designed to target customers who are already using HMRC’s digital services, and it is important to important to bear that in mind. More broadly, HMRC’s customer service is improving. It is improving its IT systems and investing in the digital aspects, which have higher approval rates. As the Exchequer Secretary said earlier, some of these matters are trending in the right direction, albeit I accept that there is further to go. I welcome the support for these measures from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest. I am sorry if I was not effusive enough for him; I shall be effusive now. He will be shocked to hear me reiterate that we keep all tax policy under review, and that statement continues to apply to the matters he raised in relation to this clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 253 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 254 to 258 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 259 Penalty points and late submission penalties (power to cancel etc)

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to clauses 259 to 262 in brief terms, and I will then speak to amendment 50. The clauses make changes to ensure that penalties are fairer and more proportionate across the tax system. They also make sure that HMRC is consistent when penalising late payment of amounts due, following the decision of a tribunal, and increase the penalties for taxpayers who are late in filing their corporation tax return. I welcome the shadow Exchequer Secretary’s support for these changes. He points out the unfairness now, but I gently say to him that the Conservatives did nothing to change the system to make it fairer during the 14 years that they had the opportunity to do so. He is right to say that moving to a points-based system is better: it ensures that those who make the occasional mistake do not face financial penalties, while those who persistently fail to meet obligations will still face them. Late payment penalties are more proportionate to the amount of tax owed and the time taken to pay. Amendment 50, as the shadow Exchequer Secretary outlined, seeks to stop customers being penalised for late filing, even if they do not have a tax liability. We reject that amendment. The late submission penalty regime is intended to underpin the legal obligation to submit returns on time, whether there is tax to be paid or not, and amendment 50 is entirely contrary to that intention. The tax return helps HMRC to administer the tax system effectively, and to protect the Exchequer from error and fraud. The late submission penalty regime already offers leniency for those occasionally submitting late, as they would receive a penalty point, rather than an immediate financial penalty. Customers who believe that they should not be in self-assessment should contact HMRC as soon as possible, so that they can be taken out of the system and avoid any unnecessary penalties. A question was raised about when lower income taxpayers will move into the system: it will apply to all taxpayers in IT self-assessment from the 2027-28 tax year. Clause 261 makes technical changes to ensure that HMRC is consistent when penalising late payment of amounts due, following the decision of a tribunal. It will enable a late payment penalty to be charged in the circumstances I have just described. That ensures that the consequences of not paying income tax or capital gains tax by the statutory due date are fair and consistent. Clause 262 will increase the penalties for taxpayers who are late in filing their corporation tax return for the first time since 1998, as part of the Government’s work to close the tax gap and make more money available to fund vital public services. Specifically, clause 262 will increase the flat-rate penalty for a company that fails to file its company tax return on time from £100 to £200. If the return is more than three months late, the flat-rate penalty of £200 will increase to £400, replacing the initial penalty. If there are three successive failures, the flat-rate penalties of £500 and £1,000 will be increased to £1,000 and £2,000 respectively. The clause also gives the Government the power to amend the penalties by regulation in future. I commend clauses 259 to 262 to the Committee.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the shadow City Minister’s point about people who are less au fait with digital means, I can reassure him that people will be able to provide information to HMRC in all the traditional ways. Indeed, the Exchequer Secretary referred earlier to some of the recent improvements that have been made to HMRC’s phone lines. With regard to the points made by the hon. Member for Newton Abbot, HMRC already receives bulk data from third parties, such as financial institutions, relating to interest-bearing products, and card sales data from card-acquiring services. This measure will improve and modernise the way HMRC acquires that data from third parties, and will have all the benefits I have just described. The Bill is clear that the improved data that HMRC will collect as a result of the measure will be strictly limited to the purposes for which it is necessary for HMRC to discharge its tax functions. He will know that HMRC has a statutory duty of confidentiality to protect taxpayers’ information. It can share data only where there is an express legal provision to do so provided by Parliament. As to the wider implication in the hon. Member’s question, I can assure him that the Government take data privacy extremely seriously. As such, this measure is compliant with all legal data obligations, and HMRC continues to work with the industry, and legal and data experts, to ensure that all relevant requirements are met.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman’s concern goes to the point that I have addressed twice now, once before lunch and once after. The measures are not intended to be directed at legitimate tax advisers who operate to a high standard but make a genuine mistake. By virtue of the consultations, the changes to the proposed legislation and the fact that detailed draft guidance will be issued, I hope that hon. Members will be comfortable with the intention behind the legislation and the impact that it will have.