Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. I recognise that she has been a consistent advocate for her constituency on this matter.
I was going to make the point that access to banking attracts considerable interest from across the House. However, I hardly need to say that, given the number of hon. Members who have attended today, or who have personally raised this issue with me while I have been in this role—or indeed who raised it with the former Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, as the hon. Member for South Devon did recently.
I shall endeavour to respond to all the points that have been raised today. I am, I fear, under pressure to do so in a dynamic fashion—following the remarks of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—so I will do my best.
I am particularly grateful to all those Members who have shared the practical and, in some cases, very personal circumstances of their constituents—that is especially important. I recognise that in rural communities—the subject matter of this debate—the loss of a branch can make everyday banking much harder. That was recognised by the hon. Member for South Devon, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), and plenty more besides—too many to name.
It is right to acknowledge, as many hon. Members have, that the way people bank has changed significantly in recent years. Many customers now benefit from the convenience and flexibility of online and mobile banking. For many people, those changes have made managing their finances easier, more convenient and also more accessible. However, it is important that we recognise that while digital services work well for many customers, many people still need to access banking services in person—a point that has been set out thoughtfully and, in some cases, very movingly by hon. Members today. Those include some members of our communities who are older or may be more vulnerable, and those who face barriers to digital banking, not least because of connectivity—a point well made by the hon. Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). Many small businesses also continue to rely on face-to-face support and cash services.
Around 3.3 million current account holders did not bank online or through a mobile app in 2024. That is a significant number. As has been detailed in this debate, branch closures can have a significant impact on communities, especially where transport links are limited—even on a good run, as the hon. Member for South Devon put it—and where towns provide essential services for a much wider rural area. That is exactly why access to banking services remains important. As a Government, we are committed to ensuring that people who need in-person banking can continue to access essential services.
As the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak)—who is no longer here—recognised, access to cash is protected by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, but access to banking services is currently not. That is why in May the Government announced an independent review into access to banking services chaired by Richard Lloyd. That review will assess whether changes in access to in-person banking services are causing detriment. It will gather evidence on the extent of that detriment, and look into which groups are affected and which of those are most affected. As hon. Members know, that review has been gathering evidence from consumers, businesses, charities, community organisations, local authorities and industry right across the UK. It will consider whether current arrangements are meeting the needs of customers and communities. That includes banking hubs and other alternative banking services.
I know that many Members—not least those in this Chamber—would like immediate answers to these questions, but it is important that interventions in this space are based on robust data and evidence, and a clear understanding of where the problems are and who they affect. That is why the Government’s review matters. I am not making a case for it to be a substitute for action; it is the evidence base that will enable the Government to act in the right way. Importantly, as Members have said, the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is currently in the other place, includes a power that will allow the Government to take action to protect access to banking services. Together, the review and the Bill will enable the Government to respond swiftly and proportionately to the results and evidence from the review.
Graham Stuart
Banking hubs themselves came out of an industry response from the NatWest executive. Does the Minister agree that we must present the information from the Lloyd review to the banking groups, be clear about what we want, and give them the opportunity to respond and provide a solution, as they did with banking hubs, so that we can perhaps avoid a more heavy-handed governmental approach?
Lucy Rigby
I do not want to prejudge the way that we will deal with the conclusions of the review. In response to one of the questions that I was asked, I can say that the Lloyd review’s results and report will be published next month. We can expect it in that timeframe.
The Government’s commitment is further reflected in our support for the roll-out of 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. I am pleased to report that we continue to make real progress against that target. More than 280 banking hubs have been announced, and 240 are already open. As hon. Members know, they provide assisted cash services and allow customers to receive face-to-face support from community bankers representing individual banks. I very much welcome the progress that has been made on the roll-out and on expanding the services available via the hubs. Community banker services now more closely resemble those of traditional branches.
Torcuil Crichton
Island communities like mine simply do not fit the parameters of banking hubs. The population of Uist, for example, is half the size of that required for a banking hub. Will the Minister consider island solutions in the roll-out of new banking hubs?
Lucy Rigby
We are considering the entirety of the geography of the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend would want us to. His point relates to not just access to cash but access to banking services, and it is important that the Government take action in that area.
Let me go back to the services now available via banking hubs. Customers can now get help not only with account opening and changes of address, complaints and powers of attorney, but with things such as bereavement support and concerns about fraud and scams, which have been raised in the debate. They can also get help with digital banking. We and the industry recognise that digital banking services are not always completely intuitive, so some people may need assistance to use them. Many hubs are piloting further improvements, including Saturday opening hours and customer liaison officers.
A number of hon. Members raised concerns about how decisions are made about the location of banking hubs under the existing legislation, and whether the current arrangements adequately reflect the circumstances of rural communities in particular. Decisions about the location of banking hubs are made independently by Link, following an access to cash assessment. Link assesses a range of criteria and factors, including population size, vulnerability, transport links, the local retail environment and post office facilities. There is a real strength of feeling across the House about how those criteria are applied, and many feel that there should be a wider consideration of access to face-to-face banking services, beyond access to cash alone—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).