Rachel Blake MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Awaab’s law has support from across this Chamber. Does the Leader of the House agree that we now need an assessment of the impact of Awaab’s law? What parliamentary time could be allocated to that? We need to be certain that the scourge of damp and mould will be tackled by this Government in our lifetimes.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  There is part of the Bill that the Minister has not referred to: part 2 on a review of shared ownership. Shared ownership is a tenure that provides a great opportunity to get into home ownership for many people, yet far too many people find themselves indebted and in a difficult position because of the service charges imposed on them and the quality of shared ownership. I am particularly interested in the different models of shared ownership that come forward. I am interested to know what this review will cover and how its outcomes might be reflected in any future investment in genuinely affordable homes.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. I welcome the Government’s support for security at Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres, as well as the announcement in July of £250 million for Jewish community safety. However, as we have heard so powerfully today, security funding alone is not enough, and none of us wants to be in a place where we are building higher walls. We need to take stronger action against hate crime. We have briefly heard about what is happening in London at weekends, when neighbourhood police are drawn into the centre of London to police demonstrations. We need to be honest about the hate crime that takes place at such demonstrations, and we must take the toughest possible action against it. We need stronger action and a closer focus on neighbourhood policing, so that every synagogue understands and knows its neighbourhood police officers and has a relationship with them that gives its members confidence in their local community. We need stronger action on antisemitism online; I pay tribute to the work of the Antisemitism Policy Trust on that specific issue, which I believe needs a greater focus. We need continued Holocaust education and clear leadership in calling out antisemitism, wherever it occurs. The safety of Jewish Londoners is not just an issue for those Jewish communities. It is an issue for all of us. When those in a community feel unsafe because of who they are, it affects us all and damages all our communities. We must stand firm against antisemitism and ensure that every Jewish Londoner can live openly, proudly and safely.

• 8 Sept 2026 · Safety of the Jewish Community · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this really important debate. We have heard such powerful contributions about the scale of the issue and powerful proposals for how we can challenge it. I represent some of the most diverse communities in the United Kingdom, including historic Jewish communities. I represent one of the oldest continuously serving synagogues in Europe, Bevis Marks, as well as the Liberal Jewish synagogue, New London synagogue in St John’s Wood, and St John’s Wood synagogue. They all welcome diverse Jewish communities every week. We cannot underestimate the scale of the challenge we face. Every Jewish Londoner should be able to go to school, attend synagogue, travel to work and take part in public life without fear, yet they cannot; antisemitism remains far too common. The Community Security Trust reports that antisemitic incidents remain at very high levels, and increased during the first half of 2026. We need to be honest with ourselves and recognise that many of us have never experienced such a high level of antisemitism in our lifetime. These are not just statistics; they affect real people, communities, and our friends, neighbours and families. Last week, at a meeting with my local rabbis and synagogue chairs, whom I meet regularly, I heard at first hand just how my constituents are feeling. Just this weekend, there was an incident in my constituency in which there was profound surveillance of a synagogue, and the response times were completely unacceptable. I will come shortly to our response to this problem. I want to put on the record my support and thanks for the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley). We have heard some reflections on the disgusting conflation of geopolitical events with individuals and communities in this country. Such conflation is profoundly antisemitic, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) said, we absolutely need to be looking at the causes of that and put in place education measures.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Building Homes and Renewing Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is really great to hear from the Secretary of State today. Members across this Chamber will know about the harm that damp and mould does to children and their families. It is absolutely right that we have brought in Awaab’s law, for which there was real cross-party support, but what are we doing to monitor its impact? How should housing associations and social landlords be regulated to make sure that they are enacting Awaab’s law and are on top of the timelines in it?

• 3 Sept 2026 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  We have had a good debate about the overnight stay levy and short lets, but on Warwick Way in my constituency I have seen real harm to communities because of unregulated short lets. Does the Minister agree that for the tourism industry to be a real success, hotels cannot be undermined by short lets, and that getting the registration scheme in place and the Treasury to investigate where there might be breaches of HMRC rules are important steps forward in ensuring that?

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her comments about restricting donations. She has talked about loopholes and the new powers that the commission will have. One loophole I am concerned about is that around donations to candidates, the definition of “candidate”, and how that interacts with other parts of the legal framework. Will she share her thoughts on any progress that the Government are making on that loophole, and say whether there is a chance for it to be considered further?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. I really welcome being here with friends who are so committed to this issue, and who have been for such a long time. This debate is about much more than press freedom, although it is very much about that; it is about whether ordinary people can speak out in the public interest without fear of being silenced by those with deeper pockets, greater resources and access to expensive legal representation. Strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs, as they are so unattractively described—are designed not necessarily to win in court, but to intimidate, exhaust and suppress scrutiny. They are increasingly deployed against journalists and campaigners, whistleblowers, survivors of abuse, community activists and ordinary citizens. Anyone who raises legitimate concerns about matters of public interest can find themselves on the receiving end of aggressive legal threats, as we have heard. The consequence of that is a chilling effect that extends far beyond the individual target. When one person is punished for speaking out, countless others are forced to conclude that it might be safer for them to remain silent. That should concern every Member of this House. One case that demonstrates that danger particularly clearly is that of my constituent, the investigative journalist Clare Rewcastle Brown, founder of Sarawak Report. Ms Rewcastle Brown played a key role in exposing the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal in Malaysia—one of the largest corruption scandals in recent history. Her reporting helped bring international attention to allegations involving billions of dollars that had been diverted from a Malaysian state investment fund. Those allegations subsequently became the subject of investigations and prosecutions across multiple jurisdictions. But instead of scrutiny being met simply with accountability, it was met with legal pressure. Between 2017 and 2019, Ms Rewcastle Brown was pursued through the London courts in a libel action brought by Abdul Hadi Awang, the president of the Malaysian political party PAS. The claim was eventually withdrawn and settled in her favour before trial. The significance of that case lies not merely in its outcome, but in what it demonstrates about the power imbalance at the heart of SLAPPs. As Ms Rewcastle Brown has described, she understood that the objective was not simply to challenge particular words on a page; rather, it was to place immense pressure on a journalist through the prospect of years of costly litigation, with the hope that, eventually, that pressure would force a retraction, damage credibility and discourage further reporting. Even when defendants ultimately prevail, they cannot recover the years lost to litigation, the stress inflicted upon them, or the time diverted away from public interest work. That is why campaigners often say that in a SLAPP, the process becomes the punishment. Let us consider what is at stake. Without investigative journalists such as Clare Rewcastle Brown, one of the world’s most significant corruption scandals might never have received the scrutiny that it deserved, important information might never have reached the public domain and powerful individuals might never have been held accountable; yet our legal system left the burden on the journalist to endure years of legal challenge before reaching that outcome. The reality is that many people do not have the resilience, resources or support to do what Clare did. Many local journalists do not, many campaigners do not, many victims of wrongdoing do not, and many ordinary citizens certainly do not. Increasingly, these tactics are evolving. They are no longer confined to traditional defamation claims; we now see claims framed through privacy law, data protection law, harassment claims and injunctions. The legal mechanisms change but the purpose remains the same: to drive up cost, create fear and suppress participation in public life. That is why the existing protections are insufficient. The anti-SLAPP provisions in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act, as we have heard, were an important first step. However, they are limited to economic crime reporting and leave many people vulnerable. A journalist investigating corruption may receive some protection; a survivor speaking about abuse may not, a local campaigner raising concerns about environmental damage may not, and a resident exposing wrongdoing in their community may not. That cannot be the right approach. I am also concerned about questions surrounding enforcement and regulation. The Solicitors Regulation Authority has made it clear that solicitors must not pursue abusive litigation tactics, must not advance unmeritorious claims and must not use their professional position to intimidate those engaged in lawful public interest activity. Those principles are absolutely right, but principles alone are not enough if those subjected to abusive legal threats do not have confidence that the system is working. That is why legislation and regulation must go hand in hand in this scenario. We need a robust statutory framework that allows judges to dismiss abusive claims at the earliest possible stage, we need strong cost protections for defendants, and we need effective professional regulation that ensures lawyers who facilitate abusive tactics are held to account. This should not be a partisan issue. Members across this House depend on a free press. We depend on campaigners, researchers, whistleblowers and engaged citizens bringing serious issues to public attention. Democracy itself depends on scrutiny. I therefore urge the Government to work constructively with all colleagues from all parties to bring forward comprehensive anti-SLAPP legislation that protects public interest speech, upholds press freedom and ensures that our courts cannot be used as instruments of intimidation by those seeking to escape scrutiny. We should ask ourselves what is holding us back from tackling this, because ultimately, this debate is about a simple principle. In a democratic society, the law should protect those who speak truthfully in the public interest, not provide powerful individuals with the means to silence them.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister to his place. In July he pledged to end rough sleeping, and that is warmly welcomed by me and my constituents in Cities of London and Westminster, which faces the highest levels of rough sleeping in the country. We have already heard people raise this issue in the Chamber today. When I speak to people who have been sleeping rough, they talk to me about feeling passed from pillar to post; when they have been offered somewhere to stay in a hostel, they simply do not feel safe and secure in it. The Prime Minister has made important statements in the Chamber today. Will he work with me on the way in which local authorities are applying the issue of local connection and on the condition of hostels in this country, which is simply not good enough? We need a real focus on that if we are to meet this ambitious pledge.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The conflict in the middle east has left British families and businesses exposed to volatile gas prices, which has made things more expensive for those who drive for work, including care workers. Even though much of the country’s electricity comes from cheaper renewables and nuclear, electricity prices are still largely set by gas, which means that running a wash, turning on the lights or boiling the kettle has also become more costly for families across the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in May, the Government are keenly aware of the costs that the conflict in the middle east will impose on British people. The Government have taken steps to put our economic security and national security first. The Chancellor has committed to doing what she can to support families and businesses; to being responsive to a changing world; and to being responsible, in the national interest. Some legacy renewable energy generators stand to benefit from the disparity when higher gas prices determine the price of electricity. Without any new costs or risks, those generators receive extraordinary revenues. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by renewable generators when electricity prices are over £82.61 per MWh, but the Government have decided to increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55% from today, 1 July. The rate rise will have two main benefits. It will ensure that a larger proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to the Government. That will provide a vital revenue stream, so that money is available to the Government to support businesses and families with the impact of the conflict in the middle east. In the longer term, the increase in the EGL rate will also encourage participation in the new voluntary contract for difference scheme, announced in April—part of a broader package of measures that break the link between electricity and gas prices. Importantly, new investment is excluded from the levy. This ensures that the measure is targeted solely at legacy windfall returns, and does not deter future clean energy development. In March, the Government announced a review of mileage rates for employees who use their own vehicle for work, and for the self-employed who use the simplified expenses rates. In recognition of the pressures facing drivers as a result of the conflict in the middle east, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in May the first uprating of mileage rates in 15 years. It was backdated to April, to provide immediate support to both groups. Mileage rates will increase for 2026-27 from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles and 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April 2026.

• 1 Jul 2026 · Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful intervention. I absolutely agree that this will make a real difference to those workers who drive for their work. This is a long overdue measure, and I am very happy to put the Bill forward today. The proposals represent the largest ever increase to the mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, and saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles. Looking beyond 2026-27, the Government have already committed to a review of the rates, and will set that out at the Budget. Recognising the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK, and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs, the Government are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles for licences taken out between 1 July 2026—today—and 30 June 2027. That will save a typical HGV £600, on top of savings from fuel duty. Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs, and this action will help prevent cost pressures arising from the conflict in the middle east spreading across the economy. The announcements on mileage rates and HGV VED were part of a wider package of measures announced in May, including on fuel duty. In total, the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty will save motorists 11p per litre, or £120 for the average car, £250 for the average van and over £2,000 for the average HGV, compared to previous plans. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Financial Inclusion: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  No, I have finished.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Financial Inclusion: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful that my first chance to speak as the Minister in Westminster Hall is in such a thorough and rich debate on this topic. Let me join in with the tradition of talking about our first job by saying that I spent many a happy afternoon doing a Saturday job on the high street in a sadly now-closed women’s retailer. I am very proud that jobs like that still exist: it gave me a thorough and deep understanding of the importance of the high street. It would be impossible to cover or respond to all of the rich and broad points that have been raised this afternoon. I also want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) a chance to respond; I thank him for securing this debate and for all his work to focus the Government and colleagues on young people and the particular challenges that they face. We have had a really broad range of contributions, including from the hon. Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting). It has been a powerful debate. We can all agree on the importance of ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to affordable financial products and services to enable them to engage in the economy. In responding, I want to talk briefly about youth employment and support for mental health, and then try to get through the questions put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. Following the Milburn report and the contributions made today, we have to be clear that the Government are in no way complacent about youth unemployment. We are absolutely determined to unlock the potential of young people across the UK. Funding for employment support is increasing to more than £3.75 billion per year by 2028-29. At the last Budget, the Government committed to more than £1.5 billion to back young people through the youth guarantee and invest additional funding in the growth and skills levy. This afternoon, we have heard interesting suggestions as to how that work can be undertaken, whether it is in youth hubs or in other youth settings. It is the responsibility of us all to consider how that investment can be made most effective, with industry working with the Government to provide jobs guarantees for a wide range of people and ensure that there are youth jobs grants under which businesses receive £3,000 for every young person they hire between the ages of 18 and 24. This is a partnership approach between industry and Government, and one that I believe will make a real difference. I also want to talk about the significant issue of mental health and its prevalence in society, particularly among young people. Today, we are talking specifically about its interaction with financial inclusion. The strategy recognises that mental health can significantly affect people’s ability to access and use financial services, along with the interrelationship between people’s mental health and their attitudes and ability to work with particular financial products. It is therefore important that we strengthen the support available for individuals through interventions to improve debt collection practices, expand the breathing space scheme to support individuals in problem debt during a mental health crisis, and examine how pre-existing mental health conditions are treated in the travel insurance market. Each of those approaches is very much under way.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Financial Inclusion: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  No, only three minutes.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Financial Inclusion: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Member will expect, I disagree with his characterisation of employer NI and the Employment Rights Act. I remind him of the positive impact that both those measures are having on workers, our NHS and the services that they are funding, and of the specific ways in which they operate with young people. His evidence base therefore does not entirely stack up. I turn to the issue of building up a credit record. The Government are continuing to engage with the FCA on its work with industry to tackle thin credit files. As part of that, the FCA has recently consulted on introducing mandatory credit information sharing by regulated firms, which would mean that any firm reporting to one designated credit reference agency must report the same information to all such agencies, ensuring full and consistent information on a consumer’s file. To give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford a chance to respond, I will rattle through actions on insurance. The Government recognise the important role of insurance in supporting individuals’ financial resilience. There are pilots among social renters, led by Fair4All Finance, and the Government also recognise that affordability is a key issue. We have had quite a thorough discussion about scam ads. The Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on the largest social media platforms to tackle fraudulent adverts. Ofcom is due to consult on those measures later this year, and once they are implemented it will be able to impose fines of up to £80 million or 10% of qualifying revenue, whichever is greater. I certainly want to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. There is much more to cover, and I commit to doing so in writing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and will be happy to continue the conversation.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Venture Capital Trust Income Tax Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely not; we have real confidence in the British venture capital sector. In the 2025 Budget, we doubled the investment limits and gross assets threshold for the enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes. Those changes are supporting growth and development.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Venture Capital Trust Income Tax Relief · Hansard source

  More

  At the Budget, the Government announced a comprehensive package of entrepreneurship tax measures, designed to provide substantially enhanced support for scaling businesses across the UK. That includes doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme. Overall, the changes to those schemes are forecast to generate about £100 million per year of additional investment in high-growth, scaling companies, thanks to the increased scheme limits in the Budget.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Venture Capital Trust Income Tax Relief · Hansard source

  More

  This Chancellor has secured six interest rate cuts. We are creating the conditions for investment in business. Investment in skills and innovation is up; investment in regional infrastructure is up; and whole-economy investment is up by 4.9% since the election. This country is the best place for start-ups and scale-ups, thanks to the economic stability that the Chancellor has been securing.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk for his analysis and for his support for the draft regulations. I am grateful to him for saying that he hopes I will be able to address some of his points, because I wrote down all nine themes. Whether I can address them all as fully as I would like, I am not sure. I am glad that he raised the Financial Action Task Force list, because I have spent some time over the past few days considering its impact. He is absolutely right to probe on the justification and the approach that will be taken. Some countries on the FATF increased monitoring list are recognised as presenting regional more than international risks, perhaps due to the lack of a specialist in the internationally facing financial sector or due to strict currency controls. The FATF recommends mandatory enhanced due diligence only for countries on the separate “Call for Action” list, which the hon. Member highlighted. That will mean that there is still an opportunity for enhanced due diligence, but the focus will be on those countries that are mandated by the Financial Action Task Force. This is an area for continued scrutiny, and that is something that I will do. The hon. Member asked about the realisation of savings. Those savings were estimated in terms of the sector, and there is an expectation that it is the sector that will focus on delivering them. A bank insolvency is obviously a very unusual event, and we are putting in place the appropriate measures to respond to that. The timing of the approach to crypto and vulnerabilities will relate to changes in controlled provisions; I believe that they will come into force for crypto firms on 25 October 2027, which will coincide with the introduction of new financial services regulatory regimes for cryptoassets. I will come back to the hon. Member on the estimated impact and the evidence base for off-the-shelf companies. He asked for further information about the impact assessment and why more benefits cannot be monetised; I hope that he will accept a written response. I am confident that the draft regulations will take us further forward in tackling money laundering. Question put and agreed to.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. The draft regulations aim to improving the effectiveness of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime. Money laundering is not a victimless crime. It fuels serious organised crime that damages our high streets and ruins the lives of people who fall victim to fraud, human trafficking and the drugs trade. It undermines the UK’s reputation as a safe and secure place to do business and, in doing so, undermines the interests of legitimate businesses. As new technologies emerge and criminals find new ways to launder illicit funds, the Government are taking action to turn the tide on dirty money. This includes a new high street organised crime unit, which is being set up by the National Crime Agency, backed by £30 million of additional funding over the next three years. It will target cash-intensive businesses, such as barbershops, vape stores, mini-marts and sweetshops, which are exploited by criminal groups to conceal their activities. The draft regulations represent a significant update to the money laundering regulations, which require financial institutions and other regulated businesses to take measures to avoid being used by criminals to launder the proceeds of crime, and to ensure that any attempts to do so are detected and flagged to law enforcement. They will make a number of changes to ensure that regulatory requirements are proportionate and risk-based, while closing loopholes and making the regime clearer and easier to use. This reflects the Government’s determination to build a more effective anti-money laundering system, sitting alongside the major reforms announced last year to our anti-money laundering supervision regime. The draft regulations consist of measures on four core themes: making customer due diligence more proportionate and effective; strengthening system co-ordination; closing loopholes in coverage; and reforming registration requirements for the trust registration service. They will also make minor and technical changes to improve consistency and ensure that the UK complies with the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard-setter on anti-money laundering. First, the measures on customer due diligence aim to ensure that the checks required on customers are proportionate to the risks. This includes the removal of the requirement for regulated businesses to apply enhanced due diligence checks on countries listed by the FATF as “jurisdictions under increased monitoring”; these are countries found by the FATF to have strategic deficiencies in their regimes. The FATF does not require these checks, and the Government expect that permitting more flexibility here will enable firms to focus their scrutiny on the most serious risks to the UK, as set out in the latest national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing. The Government estimate that this change alone will generate savings of £178 million per year for regulated firms, which can then be reinvested in higher-value compliance activity that identifies genuinely suspicious activity. Other changes on customer due diligence include important measures to increase the availability of pooled client accounts for businesses with a legitimate need, and to facilitate continued access to banking services for customers in the event of a bank insolvency. I turn to system co-ordination. The draft regulations will make changes to strengthen co-operation and information-sharing between anti-money laundering supervisors and other public bodies such as Companies House, which plays an increasingly integral role in the UK’s defences against illicit finance. To close gaps in coverage, the draft regulations will bring the activity of selling off-the-shelf firms within the scope of regulated activities. They will also make changes to ensure that owners of cryptoasset firms do not escape fit and proper checks by the Financial Conduct Authority. Finally, I turn to the trust registration service. The draft regulations will make a number of changes to close loopholes that would be leveraged to obscure asset ownership; to improve transparency of beneficial ownership of trusts with significant UK connections; and to refine registration requirements for other types of trust. In summary, the draft regulations contain measures to build a stronger, more risk-based and therefore more effective anti-money laundering regime. I commend them to the Committee.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and I hope that we can discuss it during the review.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I disagree—I think that the hon. Gentleman goes too far in his criticism of the criteria. It is important that the Government continue to monitor how these banking hubs are assessed and the need for them. I will close by talking about—

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to make a little bit of progress now, because we do not have much time. Despite the important progress that we have heard this evening about the number of banking hubs that have been set up—a commitment to 275 with 235 already delivered—it would be premature to conclude that all people and communities are receiving support with their banking needs. Decisions to close bank branches are ultimately commercial decisions taken by banks and building societies, and reflect some of the changes in the way people choose to bank.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I will.

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely recognise the importance of banking hubs, as my hon. Friend has described. I am very grateful to her for highlighting the different models available, and I very much hope that she will submit some of that evidence and the case study to the access to banking services review. I am particularly struck by the reflections of hon. Members on the importance of banking services for those who are vulnerable, and the importance of banking services in urban and rural communities and how they have been lost.