Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords]

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 10th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who is also a member of the Treasury Committee and a constituency neighbour of mine in London. We are not suggesting for a moment that the Treasury Committee starts rolling up its sleeves, conducting job interviews or getting in CVs. That is not our role. Our role is to be a check and a balance on the Government.

As I said to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, we are not legislating for the people here in this Chamber, who I believe are good and honourable Members with all good intent. We have to legislate for the worst possible set of legislators and the worst possible Government, and we need to make sure that we have that commitment to the independence of the Financial Ombudsman Service. This would be one small step that would take nothing away from the rest of the Bill. It would not damage any of the Government’s set-out intentions. I know that the Chancellor is a strong advocate for a strong Parliament, and he should be praised and recognised for that, so I hope he will consider this option. I am happy to share my thoughts with the Economic Secretary on how an amendment could be tabled; it may be that it can come up in Committee—I would hope that it would not have to wait until a later stage, on Report.

It is essential that the Chair of the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is a key public role, has the necessary independence and professional skills to maintain the balance between consumers and the financial services industry. The Treasury Committee has a number of pre-appointment hearings—more than a number of Committees do—and our measure is professional competence and independence. I would hope—and so far, Members will be glad to know, this has proved to be the case—that when the Treasury goes through a proper recruitment process, it recruits people with professional competence. We measure against that. Again, if there were a mad, bad or dangerous Government in future, that might not always be the case, but so far it has been. The independence point is important too, and that is what is often tested in the room when we have someone before us for a pre-appointment hearing. We do not have a power to sack, but in this case, we think we should have an extra power of a lock on that appointment.

The Financial Ombudsman Service is accountable to Parliament. The Treasury Committee was compelled, due to the actions of a previous chair of the Financial Ombudsman Service, to underline that point in our ninth report of the session 2024-25, which was entitled— I say this for Hansard’s purposes and I am sure that colleagues will avidly look this up in a moment—“Financial Ombudsman Service: Accountability to the House of Commons”. Providing the Treasury Committee with a statutory lock on the appointment of the FOS chair would help to guard against a repeat of that incident. I was saddened at the time to receive a letter from a public appointee to say that they did not have to appear in front of the Treasury Committee because they were a Member of the other place. That is another issue that I will take up in due course. The Second Reading debate is obviously about arguments in principle, but I am happy to have a further conversation with the Economic Secretary on the detail.

I want to raise a couple of other quick points while I have the floor. On financial inclusion, I know the Economic Secretary has played her part—I think four Economic Secretaries have dealt with the financial inclusion strategy. Now that it has been published, the Committee will keep an eye on how it is going. We published a report on the matter, and the Government told the Committee that the Bill would include a reserve power on access to face-to-face banking services, recognising the limitations of voluntary action. The power was removed in the other place following concerns about its breadth. In their response to our report, the Government said they intended to restore that power during the passage of the Bill in the Commons, and that they would use evidence from the access to banking services review to do so. I would be interested, if the Economic Secretary could cover that in her closing remarks.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with the point my hon. Friend is making. In my constituency of Ealing Southall, Santander and NatWest have recently closed down, although Barclays is still there and is being refurbished. There is a very large north Indian population in the constituency and many of them are first generation, with English as another language. Does my hon. Friend agree that face-to-face banking is particularly important for those people and for older communities?

[Dame Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, because there are many excluded groups. There is an important challenge here, too. I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for Hackney South and Shoreditch, representing a very high percentage of fintech companies. Of course, those companies never had branches on the street, so it is not unreasonable for the larger banks, which have had a network of high street banks, to say that the playing field is not level. Some tech innovation has been amazing, making banking very accessible to some people, but there are still points in life—for instance, death, or maturity to 18 when products have to be turned from junior to adult—when we need to have conversations face to face.

Even if it is not very often, there will be times when even the most digitally-savvy will need to have face-to-face contact. I recognise this is a difficult challenge for the Government to wrestle with, and there is no easy, simple answer, but it is important if there is to be financial inclusion. The danger is that if there is no proper ability to have contact with trusted banks, people get advice from elsewhere—a friend or a relative—that is not good advice; I have seen that in my own constituency. There is a danger that people get driven to the wrong place if we do not have a lock on some sort of provision, though I recognise that particular challenge for the Government.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I know that the hon. Member and colleagues in Birmingham are in correspondence and communication with relevant Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I point him to the fact that this Government have increased the local government grant by up to £2 billion by the end of this period—by 2028-29—and that we have given local government long-term certainty with multi-year budgets for the first time in many years, to allow them to plan for the future.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I have raised in this House on a number of occasions the many children in my constituency of Ealing Southall sleeping on the floor or on the sofa in mouldy temporary homes, due to 14 years of inaction and financial mismanagement by the Conservatives. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that it is only because of the fiscal and budgetary decisions that this Labour Government have made that we have been able to invest a record almost £11 billion in building new affordable and social homes for homeless London families, like those in Ealing Southall?

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the legacy of the past 14 years, where so many of our constituents are waiting for secure, affordable housing. That is why the Chancellor’s decision not only to update the definition of debt, but to allow for the creation of a new national housing bank means that we can direct billions of pounds into building affordable and social housing again. Those record levels of investment will make a real difference to the lives of families across the whole country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will just make the point again that we are a long way from Eastleigh; I do not understand how the questions are grouped in this way. Other people listed on the Order Paper are being left behind and are missing out as a result.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to help increase funding for the clean energy sector.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

The spending review announced significant investment into clean energy to strengthen our energy security and our economy. That includes over £8.3 billion for Great British Energy and Great British Energy Nuclear and £14.2 billion for Sizewell C.

[Deirdre Costigan]

Although my constituents in Ealing Southall are no doubt sweltering in today’s heat, they are worried that come winter, they will again face eye-watering energy bills to heat their homes. The previous Government left us with the leakiest homes in Europe, slashing grants for loft and cavity insulation. Can the Minister set out the work that this Labour Government are doing not just to support the clean energy sector, but to upgrade my constituents’ homes to take that clean, cheap energy and bring down bills in Ealing Southall?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is an excellent advocate for her constituents in Ealing Southall, and I am sure that many of them will benefit from our warm homes plan, which will see £13.2 billion invested across this Parliament. That investment will be allocated to schemes to support the roll-out of heat pumps, alongside energy-efficiency measures and other low-carbon technologies. This will help with environmental goals, but crucially, it will cut bills and tackle fuel poverty.

Spending Review 2025

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for the passion with which she speaks about schools, which is something I very much share. That is why we are rolling out breakfast clubs at primary schools and introducing free school meals for all children whose carers are on universal credit; it is why we are putting in real-terms increases for school funding and per-pupil funding; and it is why we are addressing the terrible situation of children being taught in temporary classrooms and crumbling schools. I will ensure that the Department for Education hears about the experience in Shipley to hopefully ensure that that school is on the list.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

A woman came to my surgery in Ealing Southall last Friday and showed me photos of the one bedroom she shares with her four children. The five of them share beds and they live with black mould on the walls. All the kids have been hospitalised, no doubt because of related bronchial infections. It is temporary accommodation, but she has been there 10 years. That is not unusual. Does the Chancellor agree that today’s record £39 billion investment in social and affordable homes marks an end to Conservative austerity and an end their failure to build, and that it will finally give hope to families stuck in damp, overcrowded flats in London and across the country?

[Rachel Reeves]

Stories like that are exactly why the Deputy Prime Minister and I have prioritised investment in affordable homes. Nobody should have to live in those conditions in the 21st century—and, with the reforms we are making and the money we are putting in, they will not have to for much longer.

Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In West Ealing, in my constituency, we have seen all the banks close over the past decade or so. In fact, the town centre itself has visibly declined, in the way that he alluded to. Does he agree that the Labour Government’s decision to permanently reduce business rates for retail and hospitality businesses and to end the scourge of late payments, along with the 350 banking hubs that he mentions, will help revitalise places like West Ealing?

[Ian Lavery]

I agree that that will help to revitalise high streets, but the debate this afternoon is about how we assist the people in our communities, mainly the least well off, the disabled and the elderly who simply want a bank to use.

As I mentioned, our high streets have been hollowed out, but we can share some community pride—or indeed some community shame—on this issue. We can start a move towards the former by moving much-needed services, like banking hubs, into the hearts of the communities that we all represent. To do so, we need proper regulation of the banks. It should be abundantly clear to anyone who has paid any attention that the banks cannot be allowed to police themselves.

The FCA needs proper teeth and the Financial Services and Marketing Act 2023 should be amended to ensure essential face-to-face services are protected alongside access to cash. During the debate on Lords Amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, before it was enacted, the then shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), said:

“I am disappointed that the amendments will do nothing to protect essential face-to-face services. Analysis published by consumer group Which? found that over half of the UK’s bank and building society branches have closed since January 2015—a shocking rate of about 54 closures each month—which risks excluding millions of people who rely on in-person services for help with opening new accounts, applying for loans, making or receiving payments, and standing orders.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 71.]

The Labour party is proudly in power, and I am sure that we will address these issues. We are now in government, and it is time to take action. We need to curb the power of the big banks once and for all. We need to start a review into the impact on communities that are losing bank branches. We need to change legislation to ensure that community factors and face-to-face services are considered when a closure is announced. We need to be bold with proposals for banking hubs by directing the funding, which should come from the banks themselves, to create thousands of hubs up and down the UK. It is firmly in the remit of the Government to do just that, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take the cross-party support that we have seen already today and consider the steps to deliver justice to our communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

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.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

T7. Does the Chancellor agree that four interest rate cuts, three trade deals, two successive quarters of growth and almost 1% of growth announced last week show that our plan for change is working? Does she also agree that it is now essential that this House supports the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill and other efforts to boost growth and put money in the pockets of my constituents in Ealing Southall?

[Rachel Reeves]

I very much agree, but what is truly extraordinary is that the Conservatives, Reform and the Scottish National party have voted against or abstained on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and they do not support any of the trade deals that we have secured to support working people in our country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

At the spring statement the hon. Gentleman will have seen the Government set out progress on measures in the autumn Budget to tackle a range of sources of tax avoidance and the tax gap. That includes prosecuting more fraudsters, introducing a new HMRC reward scheme for informants, tackling phoenixism and tackling the offshore non-compliance tax gap.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking through the spending review to help increase levels of economic growth.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

Growth is the No.1 priority of this Government. That is why in the autumn Budget and the spring statement we unlocked an additional £113 billion for capital spending, compared with the plans that we inherited from the previous Government. Yesterday we announced significant support for the automotive sector and life sciences, and ahead of the spending review in June we have announced the roll-out of an additional 60,000 places in construction skills so that we can build the homes and infrastructure that our country desperately needs.

[Deirdre Costigan]

To drive progress on our growth mission and get the most out of taxpayers’ money, it is vital that Departments work collaboratively and not at odds with each other. Will the Chancellor outline how she is promoting cross-departmental working and planning as part of the spending review?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is working closely in a constructive way to bring together clusters of colleagues to discuss some of the pressing issues that span Departments and that no one Department can address on its own, whether that is reform of special educational needs and disabilities provision for early years, or tackling issues around homelessness and the cost of temporary accommodation. We are working cross-Government to address some of those cross-cutting issues.

Family Businesses

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Unusually, I welcome the motion tabled by the Conservatives because it sets down on the record, loud and clear, that they are no friends of working people, and they are no friends of working women in particular. Their motion calls for an end to Labour’s groundbreaking Employment Rights Bill and would allow bad employers to continue to exploit workers, to sack anyone who objects and to continue paying women less than men. That is not a surprise, of course, because the Leader of the Opposition has already made it clear that she thinks maternity pay has “gone too far” and is “excessive”. Statutory maternity pay is based on earnings, and for most of the leave period it is set at a maximum of £184 a week or 90% of normal pay, whichever is lower. That translates to about £9,500 a year. I do not think many women, or their partners, would think that is excessive.

I am at least grateful that the Conservatives are being honest: they could not care less about working people. Earlier, the shadow Chancellor was unable to tell us which bit of the Employment Rights Bill they wanted to get rid of. Well, he should read his own motion—it is written in black and white. Their motion explicitly objects to Labour’s new law to finally make employers put a stop to sexual harassment in the workplace and to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment of staff by customers, contractors and service users. The Conservatives seem to be especially against that in their motion, which is peculiar, because just two years ago they said that they would bring in exactly the same law. What happened? Oh yes, I know: they abandoned working women, broke their promises and left shop workers, office staff and women managers at the mercy of sexual harassers, and they want to do the same today.

The other new law in Labour’s Employment Rights Bill that the Conservatives seem to be especially against—it is in their motion, which the shadow Chancellor has not read—is the ending of exploitative zero-hours contracts. Their motion instead supports the continued mistreatment of often low-paid workers who do not know from one week to the next how much work they will get or if they will be able to pay their bills. Let us be clear: sexual harassment can often go hand in hand with exploitative zero-hours contracts. Imagine how difficult it is for a low-paid woman to complain about her manager’s inappropriate sexual behaviour if she relies on him to give her enough hours to feed her family next week. Zero-hours contracts put way too much power in the hands of managers, and, with proper business planning, there is simply no need for them to be forced on workers.

In their motion, the Conservatives seem to have confused knowing what people’s hours are in advance with the new right of flexible working, which Labour is also introducing. They claim that those two things are in conflict—of course they are not. People can still have a zero-hours contract if they want to, but if they want guaranteed hours so that they have a secure income for their family, they will be entitled to that. If people want to work part time because they have kids or elderly parents, they will have a new right to flexible working that will allow that. The Conservatives’ motion is not clear on whether they support flexible working, but surely the Leader of the Opposition should understand and embrace Labour’s new right to flexible working, given her reported invention of Kemi mean time, or KMT, to explain being half an hour late for everything. Maybe it is one law for her and another for the workers.

In this motion, the Conservatives have squarely and unashamedly set themselves against working people, especially working women, but the British people made a choice on 4 July: they voted for a party that would stand up for working people and keep its promises to outlaw sexual harassment at work and end exploitative zero-hours contracts. That is why Labour will vigorously and vociferously vote down the Conservatives’ attempt to stop those changes today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Mike Martin.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is an expert in HSBC, but I would rather take the word of the chairman of HSBC, who welcomed the tangible investments and, indeed, led the financial forum that we held in China last week. I have been really clear that we will meet the fiscal rules that I set out in the Budget, and we will do that at all times. That is the commitment I made, and it is the commitment I continue to make.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor confirm that, for her, growth must always go hand in hand with economic security? That is a lesson that the previous Conservative Government refused to learn when they left 85% of us dependent on expensive foreign gas to heat our homes this winter.

[Rachel Reeves]

This Government’s clean energy mission will mean that we are less reliant on foreign dictators for our basic energy needs. That is why we are investing in carbon capture and storage and floating offshore wind, and it is why we are getting rid of the previous Government’s absurd ban on onshore wind.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Deirdre Costigan Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The cover-up was from those on the Opposition Benches. The sooner we get an apology to the British people, the better.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

While the headline figures that the Chancellor has revealed are astonishing from an economic perspective, does she agree that it is important to remember the impact of Conservative mismanagement on our public services, our NHS, our education system and our national security? Indeed, how can the Conservatives be trusted to run our economy or our public services ever again?