Financial Inclusion: Young People

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I should remind Members that they need to bob, though I see they already know that. I call Robbie Moore.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. Four Members are standing, so they have about five minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on a terrific speech and on gathering us in Westminster Hall today.

May I take a moment to take you back to your first job, Sir John? I am sure you will remember your pride at bringing home your first payslip. In today’s society, young people are turning to TikTok for beauty advice, fashion trends or the latest dance craze. It is where they learn how to spend their hard-earned cash, but it has also become a place of toxic finfluencers, where so-called get-rich-quick opportunities are being targeted at young people. All of a sudden, things on social media can start to feel slightly odd, because for young people those opportunities are often promoted on familiar apps that they know, in formats that they recognise and delivered by people who seem relatable.

An influencer who a young person might like may appear to be educating them about money, as perhaps a big brother or sister would, but we often find that those types of ads and reels can become exploitative. As a former Financial Conduct Authority regulator, I think we are now entering a phase of TikTokification of financial advice. The FCA, my old place of work, must be commended on its work on financial promotions, but unfortunately it has found that in some cases the majority of TikTok ads breach its finprom rules.

I call on social media giants and big tech to do more to take heed from the FCA’s work on two fronts. First, social media giants must ensure that finfluencers properly declare any conflict of interest. Secondly, there must be greater education, almost like public good messaging inbuilt into the algorithms, where officially verified types of financial education filter through them. Aviva found that one in five children under 16 are now getting financial information from social media platforms, and only one in eight said that they would get their financial advice from school or college, so the math really ain’t mathing. Boys in particular are being brought via the toxic hinterlands of the manosphere into Ponzi schemes and get-rich-quick schemes linked to body dysmorphia and other dangerous influences in the manosphere, which is an important link.

A good way to get young people into healthy financial habits is through savings. Gordon Brown understood that, as shown through the child trust fund, which was scrapped in 2011. Today, a child born into a family with money is likely to have a junior ISA opened in their name, as I have done for my children. Compound interest works favourably over the years, so by the time those young people are adults, they have a foundation that can act as a springboard for life. We need to have that nudge theory built into the system from the start. We have to think about how products delivered by fintechs can get young people saving.

I will briefly touch on fraud, because I am concerned that many of the social media ads I talk about are fraudulent. Some 47% of 18 to 34-year-olds have lost money to scams in the past year. The average loss is three grand; that is over a month’s wages. It could be the first home deposit wiped out in one. That is what financial exclusion does.

I am particularly thankful to the hon. Members who have mentioned the car insurance market. There is a phenomenon called ghost broking, where fraudulent car insurance—insurance that does not really exist—is sold to young people. They are a young driver, they think “premiums are high”, they are sold a pup and an insurance policy that does not exist. They then get into an accident, and things go wrong from there. I would like to see social media companies and the Government prioritise ghost broking and for them to listen to the Association of British Insurers’ work on that.

I want my two boys to grow up in a world in which the first financial lessons they receive come not from a stranger with a ring light and a referral code, but from good, hard-working northerners who know how to match that graft with good financial advice. I think that is the world all of us want to see when it comes to sound financial education for all.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Just for the record, my first job was in Chiesmans, a department store that then existed in Lewisham, where I served in the china and glass department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. You have launched an unfortunate trend of people fessing up to their first jobs; however, it gives me the opportunity to make a point about the context in which we are debating the financial inclusion of young people. My first job—probably illegally, at the age of about 10—was a Saturday job helping out a milkman on the milk round. I then had a Christmas holiday job helping the Royal Mail to deliver Christmas letters, and a summer job packing electric parts, all of which I did in Bedford. The key point, which relates to financial inclusion, is that a lot of what this Government are doing is turning employers away from being able to offer those job opportunities to young people. I really hope that they will rethink that, because as we have heard, the number of young people out of employment is going up quite considerably.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing this debate. I also thank him for the tone and the insights with which he opened it, which all subsequent Members reinforced, and would like to refer to some of the points made. The first was from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford, who recommended more action to support small sum lending and spoke about the beneficial effects that that can have on credit track records; I will reinforce that point a little later in some questions to the Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) raised a point that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) spoke about from a different angle, which is that young people make quite an important decision that affects their financial wellbeing: university versus apprenticeships. At the moment, it seems that both paths lead to potentially detrimental effects on young people’s financial wellbeing. They spoke about the decision to take out a student loan at a young age, and whether people get the right advice about what that might mean for their long-term financial wellbeing. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley made a really interesting point about the potential disparity in how young people who decide to take an apprenticeship are treated in terms of access to financial resources, versus those in full-time employment, so perhaps the Minister can also say something about that.

The hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) used her experience on the APPG for debt and financial inclusion to talk about the excellent work undertaken by Young Enterprise to improve young people’s understanding of money. That is quite timely, because My Money Week, which Young Enterprise started to try to teach young people in schools about finance and expand their knowledge, has just concluded. I echo the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire in saying that it would be good to extend that level of involvement beyond the age of 16 to young people more generally.

The hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) used his experience to echo a point made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) about how young people are turning to social media as their source of understanding. Turning to social media for anything is usually not good for one, which is one of the reasons why the Government have come around to banning young people from social media. When it comes to getting advice about finances, young people are already at risk through a lack of knowledge and understanding. Social media is a very dangerous source of information that can undermine what they might learn from their parents or schools. I also echo the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello): familiarity with technology is not the same as access to financial services, although there is an opportunity for us to do something with financial technologies.

Financial inclusion for young people is a passion shared between my party, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party. This is one of the areas where we are all looking to make progress. Under the last Conservative Government, we made financial education for 11 to 16-year-olds compulsory in the curriculum. I think the evidence shows—the Minister may confirm this—that we were not getting all schools doing what they should be doing, or at least that the results were not as we would have wished. However, it was the right step and the Government are moving now to make that compulsory in primary schools. That has to be a positive step.

The last Government also made progress in improving student attainment in mathematics. In the PISA—programme for international student assessment—ratings for mathematics in 2009, England, as education is a devolved matter, was ranked 27th; by 2023, it was ranked 11th. That is good progress and is part of ensuring that young people understand numbers and can therefore get to grips with things.

In the Government review by Professor Becky Francis, she commented on life skills and talked about the importance of young people learning about budgeting, interest, mortgages, pensions and financial planning. One thing that young people have to their advantage—the hon. Member for York Outer also mentioned this point—is the beauty of compounding interest. If they get the right start at a young age and are able to put some money aside, by the time they get to my age—perhaps even to your youthful age, Sir John—people will find it remarkable how compounding interest has worked on the savings that they have put aside. On the other hand, if they fall into debt, compounding interest can drive them the other way and into a much worse situation. It is absolutely crucial that we teach people the power of compounding, both positive and negative.

Let me move on to my questions. As I did not have a chance to advise the Minister of my questions in advance, I would be happy to receive a reply in writing afterwards. First, ironically, I want to ask about cryptocurrencies. What assessment have the Government done of the potential for cryptocurrencies to promote financial inclusion? I am sceptical, but there may be potential benefits as well as risks; cryptocurrencies can provide an easier way in than financial institutions and have lower transaction costs. I am interested in the Government’s view.

Secondly, I echo the point that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford made about microfinance. What assessment have the Government made of the use of microfinance platforms targeted at young people, to enable them to take the first steps in building up a credit record or potentially being small-scale entrepreneurs—another great thing that young people could do?

Thirdly, what is the Government’s view of the merits of leapfrogging traditional financial systems in favour of educating young people on emerging fintech platforms? Is that something that might raise young people’s engagement with financial education, and that might ultimately be in their best interests?

I have a small point on “know your customer” rules—I am not too familiar with this point, but the Minister may have a view. Is the Minister satisfied that the way the “know your customer” rules currently work is effective for maximising young people’s access to basic financing and banking facilities?

Finally, I am sure that the Minister and I agree on the need to ensure that schools are teaching financial inclusion at both primary and secondary level. How satisfied is she that schools are complying with the compulsory rules on financial education? What can we do collectively, as constituency Members of Parliament, to ensure that schools are delivering the quality of financial inclusion and financial education that we would all like to see?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I call the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Rachel, could you allow a short time at the end for Josh to wind up and for me to put the Question?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

No, only three minutes.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Absolutely. You missed the cut there, Robbie. I call Josh Dean to wind up very briefly.

Banking Hubs: Rural and Post-Industrial Communities

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lucy Rigby]

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—

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

rose—

[Torcuil Crichton]

rose—

[Lucy Rigby]

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

[Sir John Hayes]

The Library has made it clear that many groups beyond the elderly and the disadvantaged, including people with mental health difficulties, people with physical difficulties and people who rely on others to pay bills for them, struggle with these issues, and they struggle all the more in rural areas like Lincolnshire. That is why 98% of MPs surveyed have said that they think there should be a banking hub wherever the last branch has closed. When 98% of MPs think something, a wise Government listen carefully and act quickly.

Transport in the South-East

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for securing the debate and for the great speech she is making. She mentioned the role of buses. There tends to be an assumption made by people outside the south-east that we all have bus networks similar to those in London, but they would not have to go very far from London—to my constituency of Dartford, for instance—to find that the bus services become extremely limited, yet bus services can be such a driver of a better quality of life for people in getting to education and work or accessing other opportunities. Does the hon. Member agree that the extra money that the Government have given to county councils—in my instance, Kent county council has been given an extra £42 million to spend in the coming year on improved bus services—must be spent to provide better connectivity for all our residents, irrespective of whether they are in Kent, Sussex, Hampshire or other parts of the south-east?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

That intervention tested my legendary patience to its very limits, so just bear that in mind in the future.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention; he is right to mention that county councils should be using that money effectively to ensure that people across the constituencies that we represent can get to the places they need to. That is certainly not the case in my constituency, especially in more rural villages and hamlets.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I hope this will be a pithy intervention.

[Dr Chambers]

It will be. In the rural villages in my constituency such as Colden Common, people rely on the bus service to maintain their independence. If the bus service goes, they cannot get to hospital appointments and they cannot stay in the house they may have lived in for years. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is more than just an economic impact to having good transport; it actually allows people to live a full and independent life without relying on care?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Dr Chambers is showing how interventions should be done.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and he allows me the opportunity to thank organisations that offer community transport, such as the Selsey Venture Club in my constituency or Contact 88, which help people get to the places they need to go when transport infrastructure is lacking.

I have met representatives of National Highways on multiple occasions since being elected, and I know that the original proposals for the A27 still exist in a drawer somewhere ready to be brought back to the table to address a road that does not function and remains in the top 10 nationally for casualties. National Highways has agreed to fund a study into the Fishbourne roundabout, which desperately needs addressing. That is due to report in the spring and I hope the Government will be forthcoming with funding for the proposed improvements, as it is such a dangerous roundabout. I am one of many who have nearly been involved in an accident on that roundabout and I fear there will be a fatality before long.

The A27 Chichester bypass remains part of a future road investment scheme and the Roads Minister has met me to hear my plea to fund its improvement. It would be great if the Minister here today could provide reassurance that funding will be attached to the A27 for that future road investment scheme—something all my constituents will be desperate to hear. If she is unable to commit to the level of funding required, will she please meet me and National Highways to explore alternative schemes to address how people move around in my area?

The Government are keen to get more people on to public transport to reduce reliance on cars in particular, but the increase in fares from £2 to £3 has had a significant impact on constituents who are trying to do just that. Cristina’s children get the bus to school every day. She encourages public transport, but the cost is £26 for a seven-day child pass and the young people do not always get a seat—it is totally unacceptable. If Cristina chooses to take her three children into the city for the day, the cheapest option is a DayRider. That costs her £17 for two bus journeys that last approximately 10 minutes each way. All this makes travelling by car by far the easier and more sensible option. That is why we are calling for the reinstatement of the £2 bus fare cap and for fees to be halved for under-18s.

At the same time, bus routes are being amended to cover new housing developments without any additional services being added, so routes take longer than they did and cost more—a perfect cocktail to disincentivise bus use. What steps are the Government taking to encourage more people to use buses and to ensure that in places with major developments, such as Chichester, adequate work is being undertaken to make sure that bus services for current residents are not affected? Importantly, what steps are they taking to make sure that public transport is a material consideration on new developments, rather than an afterthought?

There are some great examples of active travel in my patch, particularly making the most of the disused railway lines along the Centurion Way into the South Downs. The issue that councils such as West Sussex county council face is that funding for those schemes is often linked to performance-related measures set by Active Travel England. That creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, with councils that are already delivering good provision being rewarded and provided with further funds, while those that struggle being left behind. Can the Minister say if the criteria linked to funding for active travel schemes will be reviewed by the Government so that areas like mine are not left behind with poor infrastructure because the county council has historically struggled to deliver them? There should not be a postcode lottery in active travel provision, and projects to create cycle lanes and footpaths take far too long from the ideas phase to the delivery phase.

I will briefly touch on rail. Chichester is not endowed with services that are quick, punctual and affordable. Last year, one in five Southern Railway trains arrived in Chichester late, despite an annual season ticket to London costing nearly £8,000. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a freeze in rail fares, so we were glad to see the Government provide that last year, but my residents are still paying well over the odds for the service that they receive, which is severely lacking. The service to London is dreadfully slow relative to services from cities that are similar to ours and at a comparable distance. That is partly due to infrastructure issues that have been ignored for years, such as the Croydon bottleneck, where the Arun Valley line joins the Brighton main line. Network Rail has said that that causes a ripple effect of delays across the system, prevents future expansion of the line and creates delays across the entire network when there is a failure in service much further up the line. It does not go down well in my constituency when people ask, “Why are there delays in Chichester?”, and I say, “Oh, because of something happening in Croydon.”

It is disappointing that there has not been a commitment to the relevant scheme, despite widespread campaigning by Members from across the House. Reliable services are vital if passengers are to see value for money and the benefits of choosing rail, but that is not currently being offered by Southern Railway. When the Government bring Southern Railway into public ownership, will they commit to reviewing a fast service for residents in Chichester and reconsider rail investment to deal with the Croydon bottleneck?

I hope the Minister has heard my plea today on behalf of my 120,000 constituents in the Chichester area and the south-east region, because they do not ask for much. They are playing their part in the Government’s growth agenda and seeing large-scale development in their area. All they ask is to move around their community safely and easily, which is becoming less of a reality every day. I do not expect a magic money pot to appear suddenly, or even in advance of the next funding round of the road investment scheme, but I do expect fairness. I hope that, when those decisions are being made, the Minister will remember that the previous Government promised something to my constituents and then took it away. That is simply not fair.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they need to bob, although I can see that they know that already.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

If Members speak for about six minutes each, everyone will get in. I am going to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.30 pm, so Members should work on that basis.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right. I do not hold out any hope that the Conservatives will speak with any consistency or do anything other than try to talk down the British economy. In stark contrast, we are cutting Government borrowing, increasing the headroom, and making sure we have stable public finances and a stable economy, because it is on that basis that we can boost investment and growth.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The demeanour of a good Chancellor should be somewhere between an undertaker and an oncologist—a reassuring presence and no words wasted—not a party entertainer trialling a few tricks before they go on stage, which is what this Chancellor did before the Budget. In seizing back control from the OBR—which is unaccountable and unelected, and should never have been set up in the first place—will the Minister recognise that, unless the Treasury and Ministers are straight with the public, no one will be trusted?

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree about the role of the OBR. We value its role in a transparent and robust fiscal framework. Madam Deputy Speaker, during this debate Richard Hughes has offered his resignation. May I put on record, on behalf of the Government, our thanks to him for his dedication to public service?

Taxes

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my right hon. Friend—that is another failure by Labour.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

There are two fundamental macroeconomic problems facing this country. One is productivity, and the second is mass immigration, which has displaced investment in domestic skills. The Budget did nothing about those, and yet the tax system could be used to address both.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced. He should have been here at the start of the debate if he wanted to intervene.

Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to banking hubs in Hertfordshire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank Clementine Manning from my office for the extensive work she has put into researching for this speech and many of my other contributions to the House. I urge colleagues to be gentle with me; this is my first Westminster Hall debate, and I have yet to learn how to do these things properly. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is here to show me the way, with hopefully an intervention in due course.

Access to banking services is essential for everyone across the country, and more and more our rural and semi-rural areas are seeing their access to banking services reduced. That is a particular issue for those who are unable to use technology to access online banking, and I know that many who are able to use online banking still feel more reassured if they are able to carry out banking activities face-to-face. Having seen the immensely positive impact that increased access to banking services through the post office has had in Rickmansworth in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire, I am campaigning for the establishment of a banking hub in Abbots Langley, another area in my constituency, to ensure that as many of my constituents as possible are able to access these essential services. I appreciate that everyone else here wants the same.

Hertfordshire in particular has felt the impact of the withdrawal of banking services, as, despite there being over 160 banking hubs now opened, just four are in Hertfordshire, with none in my constituency. Rural areas are twice as likely to depend on their local post office for cash and banking services, and it is essential that people in those areas are not left behind. Post offices have always been, and remain, critical assets to our communities, providing essential services. I have had the pleasure of meeting local postmasters in Abbots Langley and Rickmansworth, as well as visiting a Royal Mail distribution centre, to learn more about the sheer volume of service provided by their hard workers. From speaking to those postmasters, the essential role that they play in supporting our communities in all ways is clear. With many people unable to use technology, or simply more comfortable with face-to-face provision, the provision of banking hubs is just one of those essential services.

In the UK as a whole, 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office branch, as do 97.9% of the UK’s rural population. Post offices also make up more than 66% of all branch-based cash access points in the UK. That is particularly relevant because of the decline in the number of bank branches. This is not just an issue in Hertfordshire or my constituency; across the UK, we have seen 6,200 bank or building society branch closures since 2015. In my constituency of South West Hertfordshire, 89% of banks have closed since 2015, leaving us with only a Nationwide in Rickmansworth.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right that this is a problem felt across Britain, as banks abandon their customers and close branches in my constituency in Crowland, the Deepings, Holbeach, Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge. The key thing about this issue is that it affects those least able to bank online; it also affects all of us who believe that banking should be an experience where people meet other people and personal service counts. I thank my hon. Friend for this debate. I call on the Minister to have more banking hubs, as the Payment Choice Alliance has requested—I hope she will say that when she sums up.

[Mr Mohindra]

My right hon. Friend has obviously had early sight of my speech, because I was going to get on to exactly that about human interaction, but I will let colleagues hold off for a few minutes while I carry on the main body of my speech. As my right hon. Friend said, the situation is deeply desperate, but sadly, not unique to South West Herts. I know other Members in this House will be feeling similar circumstances, as one in seven constituencies across the UK have only one bank or no bank at all.

Access to cash is essential, and it is important that we retain the ability to withdraw and deposit cash to support that, particularly as that allows those who do not use online banking to keep an eye on their personal finances. The post office supports this vital service and is essential for people in my area. On average, £1.6 million is withdrawn from post offices in my constituency every month, while £3.5 million is deposited. Although the post office provides an amazing service, a banking hub in a post office gives people proper support. We must prevent the closure of post offices, many of which are now run by a single person and are not necessarily profitable. It would be a great damage to all our areas if post offices were to close too.

Although post offices such as the one in Rickmansworth have stepped up to provide greater banking services than those normally available, we cannot expect our constituents to rely on post offices to replace the banks if there is no banking hub in place, as they do not provide the same level of service. Although Rickmansworth is fortunate to have some banking services available via the post office, as well as in the Nationwide branch, since I was elected in 2019 South West Hertfordshire has lost NatWest, Barclays and Santander in Rickmansworth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing this important debate.

I begin by acknowledging that my constituency does not fall within the boundaries of Hertfordshire; it is slightly further north. However, as we have heard, the issue of access to banking hubs is an important one across the UK. My constituents, like those of the other hon. Members here today, understand the difficulties brought about by banks closing. Older constituents who have no access to digital equipment or services are often the worst affected. For some, their family members step in to support them with things such as making NHS appointments, but for many, handing over control of their banking feels like a step too far and a loss of independence. Others have no family nearby to help. Being pushed to use complex online banking is not always appropriate for these customers.

In addition, as we have heard, the ability to deposit cash is crucial for many local businesses, and with the closure of more and more post offices, it is a growing problem. Despite having many elderly residents, Bearsden in my constituency has lost all its bank branches and it appears that there is no access to an ATM. There are also no plans for a banking hub there.

The Government have made assurances that by 2029 banks will have set up 350 banking hubs. The truth is that that is woefully inadequate and much too slow. The number of bank branches operating dropped from almost 15,000 in 1986 to just 5,745 by 2023.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful point and she is right about the number. The Payment Choice Alliance, to which I have already referred, estimates that if every community with a population of 5,000 or more were provided with a banking hub, there would be about 1,200 of them. Ministers want solutions, not just questions, and that is a solution. I invite the Minister to consider that: any community with a population of 5,000 or more that does not have a bank should have a hub. I think that would be reasonable.

[Susan Murray]

I thank the right hon. Member for making a good point for the Minister to consider.

The closure of branches and their replacement with only 350 hubs represents nothing more than big banks trying to increase their profits further at the expense of their customers. That is not just a mild inconvenience; it presents a serious accessibility issue, as we have heard. For the disabled, the elderly and those without technical know-how, bank branches are often a vital resource.

Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

John Hayes Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate.

Like so many places across the country, bank branches have closed at an alarming rate in my constituency. Not so long ago, residents could pop down to a branch of every major high street bank in the towns of Waltham Cross, Cheshunt and Hoddesdon. Just last week, Halifax became the latest bank branch to shut its doors in Waltham Cross, while in Hoddesdon the former site of the Barclays remains empty, a scar on an otherwise vibrant town centre. In my town of Cheshunt, a town of 40,000 people, not a single bank branch remains. That simply cannot be right.

The lack of in-person banking facilities is depriving people of access to vital services. For so many older and vulnerable people, it is causing huge difficulty and frustration, as they are forced to rely on digital services such as apps and smartphones.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I particularly wish to draw his attention to the plight of blind people. Royal National Institute of Blind People research in 2023 found that 28% of blind and partially sighted people never used the internet, they struggle with ATMs, and they struggle too with travel to banks.

[Lewis Cocking]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is really important that we expand the rules to get banking hubs in more locations across the country. Not least of all, my nan does not do online banking. Every time I go and see her, she badgers me about it. She will specifically bank with someone where she can have face-to-face services, because she will not do online banking. It is a real struggle, because some banks say, “Well, you’ve got to telephone.” But even then, one has to have a smartphone to get a code on the app for security, so it is very difficult for our older and disabled constituents to access those vital services.

When Barclays went from the high street in Hoddesdon, it did a “Barclays local”. Through the good work of my Conservative-run Broxbourne council, we managed to get it into the Spotlight, our local theatre, but it is cashless. That is nonsense! Its bread and butter business as a high street bank is to deal with cash and get people access to its cash and banking services, but it wants to run a service that is now cashless. We tried in Cheshunt—as I said, a town of 40,000 people with no banking services—to get the NatWest banking van at the car park of our Laura Trott sports centre, but again it would only offer a cashless service. This is bread and butter to the high street banks. They should accept cash and we should bring forward legislation to ensure that our constituents across the country have access to banking services. We need to look at the rules, because waiting until the last bank is in our high street does not promote consumer choice or solve people’s banking and access to cash needs.

On buses, my constituents are lucky if the bus even turns up—we get one bus once an hour—so including public transport in analysis of banking hub locations is unreliable. We need to widen the criteria to enable more banking hubs to be opened up across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

I do not intend to labour too long on rehashing points that have already been made. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling it.

It is very clear that access to a physical bank is important for many people in our communities. My constituency, like those of colleagues present, has not been spared the loss of banks. In Lichfield, we have recently lost our Barclays branch, but up the road in Burntwood we have a much more difficult situation: every single bank branch has been closed for a number of years. The community has stepped up, as it so often does in Burntwood, and the post office has filled the breach. There is some access to banking services, but that is not the same as a physical branch.

As I sit and listen to the debate today, I realise that there is one word that sums up the importance of this matter—regeneration. Burntwood has a high street that is almost ready to go. Some businesses are thriving and the footfall is massive, but there is not the investment to make it kick on and become a town centre of which the whole town can be proud.

In Lichfield, where the banks are more present, there is a thriving cafe culture. Although everything is not all sunshine and rainbows in Lichfield and it never will be, we can really see the difference in the two town centres. What we are seeing here is almost an unvirtuous circle, where high streets start to struggle, footfall drops off, banks start to struggle and withdraw, footfall drops further, shops struggle more, and so on. It is a spiral to the bottom.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is becoming an hon. Friend. What happens is that the banks encourage their customers to do things online. You cannot open an account in a branch—where branches still exist—and then say that online banking is replacing face-to-face contact.

[Dave Robertson]

It is important to say that internet banking is not going away. These two ideas—face-to-face banking and internet banking—should be two sides of the same coin. All our high street banks should recognise that they have a responsibility to both ways of working. I prefer to bank online because I am busy and spend half my life on trains, but there are people who do not have that luxury, as they are technologically reluctant to engage. I hear many people ask the Government, “What can we do to get more banking hubs? What can we do to encourage more physical banks?” That is something that I would support, particularly for towns such as Burntwood, where bringing those banks back could be that spark of regeneration—the thing that starts to reverse that unvirtuous circle, so that it becomes a virtuous circle, where those banks are present and they drive footfall: it is easier to get cash, easier for businesses to bank there and easier for the high street to come back.

We all know that the high street is the physical representation of how people feel the economy is going. One reason people are so worried about the economy is that our high streets have been failing for decades. Governments have not supported high streets for far too long, and I am proud that this Government are saying that they will now do so. Getting banks back on to the high street, where they belong, can be that first step for towns such as Burntwood and the others that we have heard about in today’s debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on setting the scene and on his introduction of the issue. As an MP for an area that has been hard hit by the removal of 11 banks, first in rural villages and now increasingly in even the main towns of Strangford, the issue is incredibly important. We need the regulation of access to banking services in legislation and to stop the drain towards online and city-centre banking only.

Millions of people in the UK still rely on cash day to day; in fact, some 1.1 million people in the UK remain unbanked and rely entirely on cash, while more than 8 million adults report that they would struggle to cope in a cashless society. A YouGov survey found that nearly 28% of small businesses use cash at least weekly. The British Retail Consortium has shown a rise in the use of cash for the second year in a row to 20% of transactions in 2023, as more and more people use cash to manage their budgets in a difficult economic environment.

While closing branches, banks have managed to increase their profits by some £2.5 billion. It is clear where their focus is. However, once the banks are closed and the profits are allocated to shareholders, how will they continue to up the profits? What services will be removed next? The percentage of branch closures is lower in larger and medium-sized towns and highest in villages and smaller communities, at 50% and 70% respectively.

[Sir John Hayes]

That is why the Link criteria need to change, is it not? The trouble is that rural areas are disproportionately damaged by the fact that the population size is not big enough. People cannot get access to banking in The Deepings, Long Sutton, Donington and elsewhere in my constituency. I am sure it is the same in the hon. Gentleman’s.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is replicated not just in his constituency and mine, but probably in those of everyone here today. Those in rural areas are twice as likely as those in urban areas to depend on their local post office branch for cash and banking services. With 11 banks closing and two banking hubs opening, we depend more than ever on the post office. We have credit unions but what we can do with them is very limited, despite being very welcome.

While bank networks decline, the Post Office continues to provide free and convenient access to cash through its branch network. However, the branch in Newtownards in Strangford is set to close—there is potential for that to happen, anyway—and that is absolutely devastating because the range of services that are not available in the local garage, which has a sub-post office, will only grow. Even the Post Office must therefore rethink its obligations.

Through the banking framework that the Post Office has with 30 UK banks and building societies, postmasters support over £3 billion in withdrawals and deposits each month, providing a trusted, convenient face-to-face service at the heart of communities. However, large branches such as the one in Newtownards must be left open if we are truly to have a full service.

According to Age UK, 27% of over-65s and 58% of over-85s rely on face-to-face banking. Nearly a third—31%—of people over the age of 65 said they were “uncomfortable” with the idea of banking online. The age sector must be protected, and the way to do that is to require legislatively a better minimum service from banks and post offices that are trying to fill the gap but are pulling back.

So what do I want? I want banks to be required through legislation that they deliver for their customers. I want to ensure that the post offices, including the main post office, are in place in my constituency and to see opportunities through credit unions. I look to the Minister to outline how the Labour Government will protect access to cash, face-to-face banking and a full-service post office in each area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I agree 100%. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

Let us be clear that the decline of our high streets and the decline of bank branches have run concurrently as behaviour has changed over the last couple of decades and retail activity has increasingly moved online. Banks are, of course, commercial entities, and their decisions to close branches are often driven by commercial imperatives, which is not necessarily what we want to hear in this debate. Falling footfall, the rise of digital banking and the need to be cost-effective are just some of those reasons.

As we have heard so often, there are now just 3,000 bank branches remaining in the UK, and that number is expected to drop even further in coming years. ATM numbers, especially free-to-use machines, have also declined. Only 14% of payments in the UK were made with cash in 2022, and withdrawals from the Link network are down 50% on pre-covid levels.

[Sir John Hayes]

The clue is in the phrase “banking service”. It is about providing a service to people. As the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) said, banks dignify communities too. This is about personal interactions, trust and building relationships. That is what we do when we go into a bank, and we could never do that in the same way online.

[Mark Garnier]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about face-to-face relationships, not something done through an app.

Behind the statistics I cited are real people and real communities. The digitally excluded, older people, those in poor health and people with lower financial resilience mostly rely on cash. Small businesses and rural communities are hard hit. The question for Members who want to compel banks to keep branches open is how much digital-first customers should be charged to retain loss-making branches—notwithstanding, of course, that profit question.

Of course, the answer cannot simply be to do nothing and to walk away from our responsibilities to those who are left behind. The previous Government recognised the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in this sector. Through the post office network, we provided a system of free and convenient access to banking services, and the banking framework partnership between the Post Office and over 30 of the UK’s banks and building societies means consumers and businesses can access basic banking services through the post office network. The Post Office now has more branches than all the banks and building societies combined, and according to the Financial Conduct Authority, post office branches make up more than 66% of all branch-based cash access points in the UK. The last Government also introduced banking hubs, which we have heard a great deal about.

I am conscious of time, and I do not want to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, so although I have a lot more to say, I think it would be prudent for me to step aside and allow the Minister to face up to the passion about this issue from Members representing their communities.

Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I will call Susan Murray to move the motion, and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister.

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of Inheritance Tax on family-owned businesses.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and a privilege to lead this debate on a matter of real consequence to our economy. I begin by paying tribute to the extraordinary contributions that family-owned businesses make across the country, not least in my own Mid Dunbartonshire constituency. They are not just economic actors; they are part of the fabric of our communities. They offer good local jobs and apprenticeships, sponsor local sports teams, support local charitable activities, and keep our high streets and industrial parks alive with character, energy and local pride.

According to the Fraser of Allander Institute, in 2025 family-owned businesses are in turbulent and uncertain times. They are facing national insurance increases, with many scaling back plans for workforce expansion and recruitment as a result. The latest quarterly economic indicator from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce network presents a stark picture, as businesses face pressure that threatens to derail growth, investment and competitiveness. Taxation is now the No. 1 concern facing Scottish businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray]

I certainly agree that we need to protect our family-owned businesses and do everything we can to help them to thrive, rather than putting them in a position whereby the economy is at risk of losing both jobs and growth.

I will finish the question that I was putting to the Minister. Will he consider amending the proposed legislation to ensure that the changes do not weaken genuine family businesses, and make the transfer of shares in a family business to the next generation exempt from inheritance tax for seven years, provided that the business is not sold in that period? If it is sold within that period, inheritance tax would become payable, along with the capital gains tax, both of which could be funded from the proceeds of the sale.

This Government have stated that growing the UK economy is essential, but attacking the backbone of the economy—the family businesses that have proved they can adapt and change rapidly to meet changing market needs and conditions, and that support supply chains and local jobs—must not happen. Family businesses should be supported, not raided for a relatively de minimis gain to the Exchequer.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I hope he will leave me a couple of moments at the end of the debate to put the question.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is a great champion of businesses and farmers in her constituency. When we were deciding how to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief, we made sure that generous tax reliefs still existed in the tax system precisely because we want to continue to support small and family-owned farms and businesses in particular. I will come to those in a moment.

I am conscious that you asked me to give you a few moments at the end, Sir John. Do you mean at the end of my remarks?

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

I need about 15 seconds at the very end of your remarks.

[James Murray]

Got it. To conclude my remarks on the wider support that we are giving to businesses, I also draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that we committed in the “Corporate Tax Roadmap”, which was published at the autumn Budget, to maintain the small profits rates and marginal relief at their current rates and thresholds, as well as the £1 million annual investment allowance.

I know that many Members are concerned about the reforms to inheritance tax that are the subject of the debate, so I will now turn to them. The reality is that the full, unlimited relief introduced in 1992 has become unfair and unsustainable, particularly in the economic context that we inherited. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates, which is clear from the latest HMRC data from 2021-22. More than 50% of business property relief was claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That means that the wealthiest few per cent of estates claimed £558 million in tax relief. That contributes to the very largest estates paying a lower average effective inheritance tax rate than smaller estates. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances. It is for that reason that the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief.

Under the reformed system, estates will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined assets from April 2026, and on top of that there will be an uncapped 50% relief on further assets. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Those reliefs sit on top of the standard nil-rate bands and other exemptions, such as transfers between spouses and civil partners.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Hayes Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I visited Stockport with my hon. Friend and the Mayor of Greater Manchester last year to see the regeneration work happening there, linking new investment in housing with transport infrastructure. I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership. Last month, alongside the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, we also set the national wealth fund’s strategic direction, with a focus on support for the defence sector through dual-use technology, creating more good jobs in all parts of the country, including Stockport.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Economic policy should benefit all regions of Britain, including rural counties such as Lincolnshire, where we grow a disproportionate amount of the food that feeds the nation. Does the Chancellor recognise that, in an age when the two biggest economies in the world are protecting their industries—including agriculture—the time has come to reinvest in manufacturing and to consume more of what we produce here in Britain? To echo the call of the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, we should buy British. That means using Government procurement to back British jobs, British projects and British workers.

[Rachel Reeves]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has set out new reforms for procurement rules to enable just that. We want more British businesses to win contracts. We want more small businesses in Britain to win contracts—businesses in all parts of the economy, including in food and farming. In farming, we gave a record settlement of £5 billion in the Budget last year to support this important part of our national economy.

Spring Statement

John Hayes Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I know that my hon. Friend is incredibly proud to represent Barrow and Furness and that her constituents are incredibly proud to work on our nuclear deterrent. This Government will always stand with them, putting in place our new plan for Barrow for new jobs and new investment in the town, so that we get value for money for taxpayers and, critically, ensure our country’s national security.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Chancellor was right to highlight productivity as an issue, and right, too, to focus on skills shortages, although she did not explicitly note the implicit link between them. She failed, however, to say that her productivity ambitions have been scaled back and that the number of young people not in education, employment or training is growing. Will she set out—perhaps in a note in the Library of the House or in a statement—by how much she expects apprenticeships to grow year on year? When I was a Minister, we reached the highest level in modern times, and the numbers are much lower now. We need to grow apprenticeships to build our skills and to grow productivity. If she does not do that, we will feel that hope exceeds expectation.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He speaks powerfully about something that he knows a huge amount about. Let me answer three parts of that question. First, the OBR has revised up our productivity in its forecast. Secondly, we have a massive problem with young people not in education, employment or training—it involves one in eight young people. However, as I said in answer to a previous question, the OBR has not taken into account the impact of our back to work programme. It will work on that over the summer with the DWP and the Treasury, because we want to make sure that we design that in a way that gets as many young people back into work, contributing to the economy and contributing to our society.

We were able to announce, just a couple of weeks ago in National Apprenticeship Week, an expansion of the apprenticeship programme, particularly through foundation apprenticeships and by relaxing some of the maths and English requirements. If we want to build the homes that our country needs, we need to get people into construction jobs and not say, “I’m sorry, you didn’t get a grade C in maths and English, so you’re not welcome on the construction site.” That makes no sense at all, which is why we are reforming how apprenticeship works, to get more people with the skills they need so that they can contribute to their families and the economy. We want those numbers going up.