Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 General Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) Regulations 2025.

This statutory instrument delivers a comprehensive regime for the regulation of cryptoassets within the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 framework, meaning that cryptoassets will be regulated under the same architecture as other financial services. Coupled with the rules being prepared by the Financial Conduct Authority, the regime will protect consumers and give technology and financial services firms the certainty they need to invest and grow in the UK. There is a general trend towards more people investing in cryptoassets in the UK; as they become more intertwined with traditional financial services, it is critical that we offer appropriate protection and get our approach to regulation right.

Previous intervention in this space has focused on addressing the most urgent risks first, namely money laundering and misleading financial promotions. However, as it stands, most cryptoasset activities are not subject to broader financial services regulation covering matters such as conduct and prudential requirements. Consumers and industry have long called for clear and comprehensive oversight of cryptoassets in the UK, and the Treasury first consulted on these proposals in 2023 under the previous Government. In October 2024, this Government committed to implementing a regime largely in line with the consultation proposals. The instrument before us today delivers on that commitment.

The instrument amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 to do two principal things: first, to define the categories of cryptoasset that will be in scope of the regime; secondly, to define the new activities that will be regulated. Generally, firms undertaking those activities in the UK or for UK consumers must be authorised by the FCA or risk committing a criminal offence. The new activities are: issuing qualifying stablecoin in the UK; safeguarding qualifying cryptoassets and relevant specified investment cryptoassets; operating a qualifying cryptoasset trading platform; dealing in qualifying cryptoassets as principal or agent, or arranging deals in qualifying cryptoassets; and qualifying cryptoasset staking.

The instrument also uses the new designated activities regime to create frameworks governing public offers of qualifying cryptoassets and their admission to trading on relevant platforms and to tackle market abuse in relation to such cryptoassets. As people will have spotted, it also makes consequential amendments to various pieces of legislation to ensure that the regime can operate effectively and to ensure consistency between the cryptoasset regulatory framework and the rules that apply to traditional financial services. The provisions will take effect from 25 October 2027, which will allow the FCA to consult and finalise rules this year, and give at least 12 months for firms to apply for authorisation and the FCA to process applications ahead of the enforcement date.

In conclusion, as I have set out, this regime will raise standards, strengthen consumer protection, help to tackle market abuse and support the responsible growth of the UK’s cryptoasset sector by providing clear and consistent rules. It brings cryptoassets within the robust Financial Services and Markets Act framework while ensuring that the sector has the space and flexibility to innovate. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting this instrument.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the whole Committee for their consideration of this matter—in particular the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). I share his vital commitment to continuous innovation in financial services. I would argue that what has made London and our financial services hub as world-leading as we are is our continuous embracing of innovation—he went quite some way back with coffee shops. I also share his view that the next stage of innovation, which is critical to embrace, concerns stablecoin, digital assets and tokenisation much more broadly. It is fair to say that we are coming at this from the same place.

With regard to stablecoin specifically, we wholeheartedly agree on the potential of stablecoin to play a really significant role in both retail and wholesale payments. The shadow Economic Secretary rightly refers to qualifying stablecoins as a definition being a subset of qualifying cryptoassets. He also recognises that this SI aims to bring the issuance of stablecoin within the FCA’s perimeter, which I distinguish from using stablecoin as a method of payment. Again, I think we are on the same page in relation to that.

There is a deliberate carve-out for stablecoin payment activities in this SI, because we have carved out any transaction for the purposes of the supply of goods or services. The intention is to deal with the use of stablecoins as a method of payment in the context of the upcoming payments strategy. An awful lot of work will be done on that over the course of this year, because, as the shadow EST rightly refers to, the UK is a leader in payments innovation, and stablecoin is a key piece of that.

There are other pieces of the stablecoin picture; as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bank is currently consulting on a systemic stablecoin. Quite what will constitute “systemic” is yet to be defined, so that remains an area in which the industry is, understandably, looking for answers. As I said, the Bank’s consultation is open, and the FCA is also consulting on the detailed rules that will underpin this regime.

I note, and very much welcome, the shadow EST’s support in principle for these measures. It is critical that we make sure that every single i is dotted and every t is crossed. We all want this to go right, and I certainly do not want there to be anything that subsequently becomes an issue. I am not sure that there is at this point but, as I say, while I note his support in principle, I would nevertheless be more than happy to talk to him at a mutually convenient time, and for him to bring in the experts that he referred to. We can then hopefully persuade him that this is completely kosher as it is, or he can tell us why he does not think that that is the case. That is a meeting that I am more than happy to have.

I am grateful to members of the Committee for their consideration of this SI, and I hope they will join me in supporting these measures.

Question put and agreed to.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

It is a pleasure to open this second day of our Committee stage debate. Yesterday the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), explained how the Bill gives effect to a Budget that took fair and responsible decisions to stabilise and strengthen the public finances, address the cost of living and renew our public services. We are clear about the fact that we will not repeat the mistakes of the last Government. That means no return to austerity and no completely irresponsible unfunded spending commitments, both of which, unfortunately, were features of the Conservatives’ time in power. This Government wholeheartedly reject those failed approaches and choose a different path, one of fiscal responsibility and one that will strengthen our economy so that it delivers for people throughout the country. Today the Committee will consider a further set of important and targeted measures relating to pensions, gambling duties and alcohol duty, which reflect this Government’s commitment to a tax system that is fair, modern, and aligned with the realities of today’s economy.

Our approach to changes in gambling taxation is fair and proportionate, as the Committee will hear later this afternoon, and, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor explained in her Budget statement, those reforms will contribute significantly to the Government’s efforts to lift an additional 450,000 children out of poverty. The pensions clauses will ensure that generous tax reliefs continue to support the core purpose of pensions, which is to help people to save for retirement. They address long-standing inconsistencies, and will ensure that pensions are not used primarily as a vehicle for passing on wealth free of inheritance tax, but instead continue to protect the vast majority of estates and maintain strong incentives to save.

I turn to clauses 63 to 68. Pensions enjoy significant tax benefits, with gross income tax and national insurance contributions relief costing £78.2 billion in 2023-24. It is therefore crucial to ensure that these reliefs are used for their intended purpose, which is to encourage saving for retirement and later life. Changes to pensions tax policy by the previous Government over the last decade led to pensions being used, and increasingly marketed, as tax planning vehicles to transfer wealth, rather than holding true to pensions’ primary purpose, which is of course to provide a way to fund retirement.

As hon. Members will know, there are also long-standing inconsistencies in the inheritance tax treatment of different types of pensions. Most UK-registered pension schemes are discretionary, meaning members can nominate whom they would like to receive death benefits, but the scheme trustees are not obliged to follow members’ wishes. Under existing rules, any unused pension funds and death benefits from discretionary schemes are not subject to inheritance tax. By contrast, some pension schemes are non-discretionary, and these are subject to inheritance tax under existing rules.

The changes made by clause 63 mean that most unused pension funds and death benefits payable from a pension will form part of a person’s estate for inheritance tax purposes from 6 April 2027. Clause 64 ensures that personal representatives are responsible for paying any inheritance tax due. Clause 65 means that personal representatives will be able to request that the pension scheme administrator withhold paying a proportion of benefits where certain conditions are met. It also allows both personal representatives and pension beneficiaries to make pension scheme administrators pay inheritance tax due on pensions directly to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—again, provided certain conditions are met.

Clause 66 makes some consequential amendments to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 to ensure that the existing exemption for spouses and civil partners and the treatment of payments to charities continue to apply. Clause 67 changes the income tax rules for pensions to provide for the payment of inheritance tax, including in respect of direct payment by pension schemes. Clause 68 ensures that the changes take effect from 6 April 2027.

These clauses ensure that pensions are used, as I have said, for their core intended purpose, rather than as a vehicle for passing on wealth free of inheritance tax. They also remove long-standing inconsistencies and deliver on the Government’s promise to this country to build a stronger and fairer economy.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

This is a retrospective tax without transitional protection. It upends plans for those who have already made sacrifices to build up their pensions, undermines confidence in pensions planning, reduces long-term investment and causes people to rush to withdraw money from their pensions.

As has been mentioned, the chartered institute and the ATT have raised concerns about this group of clauses, which shoehorn pensions legislation into tax legislation. There are major worries about creating personal liability without control for personal representatives, whether executives or administrators. Personal representatives are legally obligated to gather all the assets, settle any liabilities, including inheritance tax, and distribute the remainder of the estate to the beneficiaries. They are personally liable if they do not set aside enough money to settle all financial liabilities, including IHT. Experts have warned that someone being personally liable for IHT on a pension fund that never comes into their hands leaves the door open to costly and protracted litigation and will understandably make personal representatives, such as professionals or friends of the deceased, much more cautious before they distribute all of the estate.

Even more concerning is the fact that if representatives discover a new pension fund after settling the initial IHT liability, this would have a knock-on effect on not only the estate but all other pension funds. It means that IHT will have to be recalculated for every part of the estate and every pension fund. It is far from uncommon for people to have had different jobs with separate pension plans, so the risk of miscalculation is obvious. If someone passes away before they have had the chance to consolidate their pension funds, tracking down the unused pots within six months of their death will be very difficult for executors and will mean that the initial IHT calculations could be wrong. The Government must recognise that and amend this measure. If they do not, and Ministers simply ask future executors to sign some sort of disclaimer form, they will soon find that nobody will want to take on that role.

Our new clauses 18 to 20 raise the clear need for significant reforms and are a means of pressing the Government to protect individuals from being liable for private pensions that they did not know about and could not reasonably know about either. Finally, there is widespread worry that family members might have to wait up to 15 months before they are able to access their inheritance, during what is bound to be a hugely straining period of loss and grief. The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 20 urges the Government to recognise that reality and take steps to address it.

[Lucy Rigby]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate on this group of clauses. Before I respond to the specific points that have been raised, I will reflect briefly on the core purpose of the Bill.

The Bill contains fair and necessary reforms to the tax system, which unfortunately have been ducked for far too long. They will help to strengthen our economy for the long term, ensuring that we can cut the cost of living and inflation, and restore our public services and the public finances to health. The Tories and Reform—who are increasingly indistinguishable, it might be said—have already set out their choice: a return to the chaos and instability of the past. That approach failed before, and we are not going back.

The clauses in this group restore pensions to their core and intended purpose, which is funding retirement. We are not allowing them to function as a tax-free vehicle for the transfer of wealth. Generous tax relief for retirement saving is preserved. The clauses ensure that pension wealth is treated fairly and consistently for inheritance tax purposes. They protect ordinary families, with more than 90% of estates still paying no inheritance tax at all each year after the changes.

Let me turn to the non-Government amendments in this group. New clause 18 would require the Treasury to review the effects of the changes to pension tax policy, including their impacts on individuals, administrators and behaviour. A report would need to be laid in Parliament no later than six months from when the Act comes into force. This new clause is not necessary. The Government have published a tax information and impact note on the changes in the normal way. It sets out the impact on individuals, and accounts for the impact on personal representatives.

As hon. Members know, the Government keep all tax policies under review through the monitoring of returns and communication with representative bodies and taxpayer groups. A review within six months of the policy taking effect on 6 April 2027 is not practical, not least because the data relating to inheritance tax in 2027-28 will not be fully available until the summer of 2030. That is the normal timescale, and it operates because tax liabilities data is available only with a long lag, partly because the filing of the relevant inheritance tax accounts is due 12 months after a death. For those reasons, new clause 18 should be rejected.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Clauses 84 and 85 stand part.

Schedule 13.

New clause 21—Review of the impact of sections 83 and 84: free bets and freeplays—

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the impact of implementation of sections 83 and 84 of this Act in respect of the treatment of free bets and freeplays for calculating general betting duty on remote bets.”

New clause 25—Statements on increasing remote gambling duty and introducing a new rate of General Betting Duty—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase in gambling duties made under sections 83 to 84 of this Act.

(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) sports and horseracing,

(b) the number of high street betting shops,

(c) the gambling black market,

(d) the employment rate, and

(e) the public finances.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in gambling duties.

[Lucy Rigby]

Clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 make changes to the gambling duties regime, to better reflect the modern gambling market and to raise more than £1 billion a year to support the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. I will first speak briefly to the broader context of the package, and I will then turn to each clause.

Gambling is a significant part of the UK economy, generating an annual gross gambling yield of around £16.8 billion in 2025, according to figures from the Gambling Commission. The industry has changed markedly in recent years, while the duty system has not changed since 2019. Most notably, there has been a structural shift from in-person to online gambling. Between 2015 and 2025, remote gambling grew by 80%, while land-based gambling has declined by 10%. At the same time, evidence of gambling-related harms has become even clearer.

The estimated cost to the Government and society of gambling-related harms in England alone is between £1.05 billion and £1.77 billion a year. NHS figures show that over 40% of gamblers using online slots, bingo or casino games are considered to be at risk, compared with less than 15% of those betting in person on horseracing. Referrals for gambling addition have risen sharply—NHS England has doubled the number of clinics for problem gambling. I am grateful for representations from so many MPs and campaigners on this matter, alongside those with constituencies where horseracing plays an important role in the community and, indeed, the local economy.

In the Budget, the Chancellor made it clear that changes to gambling taxation are fair, proportionate and for a purpose, as they will directly contribute to lifting an additional 450,000 children out of poverty. This Government are very proud of that. Unfortunately, the Opposition showed little regard for child poverty when they were in government, and it is entirely in character, albeit no less shocking, that they oppose this Government’s changes and would increase child poverty as a result. Reform UK is even more brazen.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way during an excellent speech introducing what I think is an extremely positive change. Like many Members, I have campaigned for some years to ensure that the most harmful and addictive forms of gambling attract tax that is commensurate with those harms, so I welcome this measure, as I am sure do others who have campaigned on this issue. As a member of the Treasury Committee, which recommended this change in a report just before the Budget, I am very glad to see it. Will the Minister confirm that some of the revenue raised will be used to help the Government reach their objective of lifting half a million children out of poverty, and say how that relationship works? The Treasury clearly does not want to see a hypothecation of that sum, so how does the connection between the money raised by the tax and the lifting of children out of poverty work?

[Lucy Rigby]

The tax changes in the Bill disincentivise the most harmful forms of gambling. We have also introduced a statutory levy to pay for the prevention of some of those harms arising in the first place, and of treatment, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has said that the tax change will disincentive the most harmful form of gambling, but can she cite any evidence that will demonstrate that? I have no problem with taxing a profitable industry to pay for the wonderful policies that we announced for the sector, but the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility states that there will be a drive towards the black market as a result of these taxation changes. That is much more damaging, will raise much less revenue and, ultimately, will be much more damaging to our economy.

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. NHS figures show that over 40% of gamblers who use online slots, bingo and casino games are considered at risk, compared with less than 15% of those who bet in person on horseracing, so that is an important contrast, and the NHS figures bear that out.

Reform UK’s position on the two-child cap is even more brazen. The party went into the election promising to scrap the two-child limit but has now abandoned that position, and its Members will be traipsing through the Division Lobby with their ideological bedfellows, the Conservatives. Indeed, on any given day it is hard to keep track of who is supposed to be sitting on the Conservative Benches, and who has moved to the Reform Bench.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) raised the important point that the OBR says that these measures will drive money towards the black market, potentially not benefiting the taxpayer and the Treasury as much as the Minister says. Will she explain what she will do to avoid the black market benefiting from these tax changes?

[Lucy Rigby]

The right hon. Member raises a good point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), about the illegal market. We are reassured by the fact that the illegal betting market in the UK is relatively small, representing between 2% and 9% of legal online market stakes. The Gambling Commission is already tackling this risk and seeking to protect consumers. The additional £26 million that we will provide to the Gambling Commission over the next three years will go to better and further enforcement against the illegal market in this space. I hope that reassures him.

At the autumn Budget 2024, the Government announced a consultation on modernising the tax treatment of remote gambling, including a proposal for a single duty covering all remote betting and gaming. The consultation ran from April to July 2025. Respondents strongly opposed a single duty, arguing that remote betting and gaming significantly differ in operating costs and harms. The Government have listened to those concerns and are not proceeding with a single remote betting and gaming duty. Instead, the Bill implements a targeted package of rate changes that will raise over £1 billion a year. It focuses on remote gambling, which has grown significantly, it protects UK horseracing and it supports lower risk community-based activities by abolishing bingo duty.

I will now turn to the individual clauses in the Bill. The changes made by clause 83 will increase the rate of remote gaming duty, which applies to online games such as slots and roulette, from 21% to 40% on 1 April 2026. Remote gaming has relatively low operating costs and has grown rapidly in recent years, with gross gambling yield rising significantly above inflation, from £2.5 billion in 2015-16 to £5.2 billion in 2024-25, based on Gambling Commission figures. It is associated with higher rates of gambling-related harm, relative to other products. As we have discussed, NHS data shows that online slots and casino games have much higher proportions of problem gamblers than betting on sports, for example. By increasing the rate on remote gaming more significantly, this measure intends to reduce the incentive for operators to push customers towards higher harm products.

Clause 84 will increase the rate for remote betting. General betting duty is currently charged at 15% for both remote and in-person betting, but the betting market has changed significantly in how it operates. Clause 84 will create a new, higher rate of general betting duty that will apply to bets placed remotely, such as online sports bets, from 1 April 2027. The new remote rate will be set at 25%, while the existing 15% rate will continue to apply to bets placed in person in licensed betting premises. The new 25% rate will not apply to remote bets on UK horseracing. Those bets will remain taxed at 15%, in recognition of the fact that operators already pay the 10% statutory horserace betting levy on horseracing bets, creating a de facto 25% burden when the 15% levy is taken into account. The new remote rate will also not apply to bets placed via self-service betting terminals in UK-licensed betting premises, pool bets and spread bets.

Finally, clause 85 will abolish bingo duty, which is currently charged on the gross gambling yield from bingo, including in dedicated bingo halls. Bingo is a much lower-risk and community-based form of gambling, often providing an important social outlet, and it supports local venues, including around 250 bingo halls right across this country. Clause 85 and the associated schedule 13 will abolish bingo duty with effect from 1 April 2026. The Bill also makes consequential changes to ensure that bingo played in UK licensed bingo halls does not become liable to other taxes or duties as a result of that abolition. This Government know the importance of bingo halls in our communities, and we are proud to back them with this tax change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I confess to my hon. Friend that I will need to write to her on that specific issue, because I do not have notes in front of me to that end. We are on the same page in terms of the principles she raises and the values that she seeks to put forward, and I welcome her welcoming of this Bill.

Taken together, clauses 83 to 85 modernise the gambling duties regime. As I said, they raise more than £1 billion a year to support public services and lift children out of poverty. They also focus tax increases on higher-harm, fast-growing online products while protecting UK horseracing and land-based betting and supporting bingo halls.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

For clarity, bet365 is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but—

[Adam Jogee]

It is one of the largest private sector employers in Newcastle-under-Lyme—that was not in my hon. Friend’s notes. [Laughter.] Can the Minister touch a little bit on the engagement with some of these companies to ensure that the workers, many of whom live in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, will not be adversely impacted?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend raises an important point around jobs in the industry. He will be aware that employment in the gambling industry as a whole declined by around 20% between 2015 and 2023, so it is in gradual decline, and the trend predates this Bill. The jobs in his constituency are incredibly important, which is why the measures in this Bill deliberately focus on online gambling, rather than betting shops and casinos, which support more jobs and face higher operating costs, as I am sure the institutions in his constituency do.

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

In Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Central specifically, 5,500 people are employed by bet365. It is not just a significant employer; it is the most significant employer. What actions or interventions is the Treasury looking at taking to try to offset some of the potential job losses that these policies will cause?

[Lucy Rigby]

As I said, employment is an important consideration that has been borne in mind for the purposes of this Bill, and there has been considerable engagement on all these issues. If the right hon. Member seeks further engagement, I am more than happy to have it.

I was just about to conclude.I commend clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 to the Committee.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

These changes will raise over £1 billion a year to support the public finances and Labour’s mission to lift half a million children out of poverty, which will affect more than 4,200 children in my constituency of Wolverhampton North East. They will protect families from harm, support communities and make sure that those who profit from misery finally pay their fair share.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate, and particularly to my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) and for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for their heartfelt speeches in favour of these measures. I also note the comments of the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), which I can assure her I did listen to in full, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), both of whom, I accept, have tremendous expertise in this area.

As I have set out, we believe that the measures in clauses 83 to 85 deliver fair reforms to our system of gambling taxation because they reflect the reality of how gambling has changed in our country, the harms that now exist and the need for the tax system to keep pace as these changes continue. The Government’s objective is to strike a balance by raising revenue fairly while avoiding further pressures on land-based operators. New clauses 21 and 25 ask the Chancellor to review the impact of and make a statement on the effects of the increase in gambling duties.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister will know that Northern Ireland has some of the highest rates of gambling, with 3% of adults classified as problem gamblers and 5% at moderate risk. I welcome her efforts in this regard, and the money that the proposals will raise. Will she give a commitment to the Committee that she will enter into conversations with the Communities Minister in Northern Ireland about Northern Ireland getting its fair share of this levy, to ensure that organisations that help those with gambling addictions are able to avail themselves of this funding to help people in that situation? I spoke recently to a constituent who had started gambling at the age of six, and it really struck a chord. Those people need help and I just ask her to do that.

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member raises an important point. Before I commit to her that I will take that forward, I would like to check what discussions have already taken place. I hope she will accept that that is necessary from my point of view.

Both the proposed new clauses focus on the impacts of the changes to the gambling duty and ask for a commitment to update Parliament within six months of the Bill being passed. First, this Government did not announce, and are not proposing to make, any changes to the treatment of free plays or free bets through this Bill. Furthermore, the Bill does not make any changes to the duty charged on bets placed on horseracing in high street betting shops.

Secondly, on the illegal market, which has been raised a number of times, the Gambling Commission is already tackling that risk and is protecting consumers, but we recognise that modern technology makes it easier for illegal websites to target consumers. To strengthen enforcement and protect consumers from dangerous illegal sites, we are providing an additional £26 million to the Gambling Commission over the next three years. I hope I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central that the £100 million a year in the form of the statutory levy is ringfenced for prevention, treatment and research in this area.

The Government published a tax information and impact note for this measure at the Budget. As is set out in that note, consideration will be given to monitoring and evaluating the expected Exchequer impacts of the policy after at least two years of monitoring data has been collected and analysed. More broadly, the Government continually monitor the operation of all taxes and keep them under review to ensure that they deliver on their intended outcomes and, indeed, are fit for purpose. For those reasons, the proposed statement and the impact assessment are not necessary.

The measures in clauses 83 to 85 deliver fair reforms to our system of gambling taxation. They reflect how gambling has changed in our country, the harms that now exist and the need for the tax system to keep pace as those changes continue. The shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), raised levels of employment. He will know that right across the piece, the OBR expects that employment levels will rise in every year of the forecast. Costings were also raised, including by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central. The OBR has taken account of behavioural impacts within its costing. Of course, those costings have been certified and scrutinised in the usual way.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), asked about engagement with industry. I can confirm that the Government, as I hope she would expect, engaged with a number of stakeholders, including from the gambling industry, as part of the consultation process. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central also raised Gibraltar. Of course we recognise that Gibraltar has a gambling industry that very much faces the UK. I can assure him that there has been engagement, not by me, but by some of my colleagues in the Treasury, with Gibraltar to that end.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that she has consulted and that Ministers have had engagement with the industry. I was specifically wondering whether in the course of that consultation with the industry, there was discussion about using a different measure and choosing a different tax base for the calculation of this particular tax, because it seems as though the tax base could have been bigger if they had used the measure already in the Finance Act, rather than this new measure that seems to shrink the tax base. Did the Treasury have a particular reason for using a different measure for calculating this remote gaming duty?

[Lucy Rigby]

It was not me who had those engagements, but as I said, I confirm to the hon. Member that we are not proposing to make any changes to the treatment of free plays and free bets through the Bill, which I hope reassures her in that regard.

I urge the Committee to reject new clauses 21 and 25 and agree that clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 84 and 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

New Clause 25

Statements on increasing remote gambling duty and introducing a new rate of General Betting Duty

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase in gambling duties made under sections 83 to 84 of this Act.

(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) sports and horseracing,

(b) the number of high street betting shops,

(c) the gambling black market,

(d) the employment rate, and

(e) the public finances.”—(James Wild.)

This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in gambling duties.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 8—Review of impact of section 86 on the hospitality sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the impact of the measures contained in section 86 on the hospitality sector.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of section 86 on—

(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,

(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade, and

(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established.

(3) In this section, ‘the hospitality sector’ means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review and report on the impact of the alcohol duty measures in Clause 86 on the hospitality sector, including effects on employment and business viability.

New clause 9—Review of cumulative impact on the hospitality sector—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before the House of Commons a report assessing the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of—

(a) the measures contained in section 86 of this Act, and

(b) changes to taxation and business costs affecting that sector introduced outside this Act since 2020.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), changes to taxation and business costs include, but are not limited to—

(a) changes to employer National Insurance contribution rates or thresholds,

(b) changes to business rates, including reliefs and revaluations, and

(c) any other fiscal measures which materially affect operating costs for hospitality businesses.

(3) A report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of the impact of the matters listed in that subsection on—

(a) levels of employment across the United Kingdom within the hospitality sector,

(b) the number of hospitality businesses ceasing to trade,

(c) the number of new hospitality businesses established, and

(d) the financial sustainability of hospitality businesses.

(4) In this section, ‘the hospitality sector’ means persons or businesses operating in the provision of food, drink, accommodation, or related services.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assess and report on the cumulative impact on the hospitality sector of alcohol duty measures in the Act alongside wider fiscal changes, including employer National Insurance contributions and business rates.

New clause 26—Statements on increasing alcohol duty—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, make a statement to the House of Commons on the effects of the increase to alcohol duty made under section 86 of this Act.

(2) The statement made under subsection (1) must include details of the impact on—

(a) the hospitality sector,

(b) pubs,

(c) UK wine, spirit and beer producers,

(d) the employment rate, and

(e) the public finances.”

This new clause would require the Chancellor to make a statement about the effects of the increase in alcohol duty.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am pleased to open this session—the sixth and final session in Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill—on clause 86, which concerns alcohol duty. This Government’s approach to alcohol duty is one of proportionality. Indeed, we are taking a fair and coherent approach to alcohol taxation as a whole. The measures in the Bill take account of the important contribution of alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector, the Government’s commitments to back British businesses, and the need to maintain the health of the public finances.

Clause 86 makes changes to alcohol duty rates from 1 February 2026. Specifically, the clause changes the rates of alcohol duty for all alcoholic products in schedule 7 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 to reflect the retail prices index.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Minister says that she has considered carefully the fairness of the changes in this clause. Has she considered at all the compound effect of this and all the other taxes that are currently killing hospitality businesses?

[Lucy Rigby]

We take all impacts on the hospitality sector and the pub sector extremely seriously, and this Government are proud to be backing British pubs across the piece.

The changes we are making will help to ensure that, as a country, we live within our means, that we balance the books and that we properly fund the public services we all rely on. On Second Reading, concerns were raised about the impact of alcohol duty on the hospitality sector and British pubs. We have made it clear, as I just have, that we are steadfast supporters of British pubs and the wider hospitality sector, including through the introduction of the new pro-growth licensing policy framework that was announced at the Budget.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Minister just said that the Government are pro-pubs, but any pub she speaks to in my constituency will tell her that this Government are not pro-pubs. The amount of profit left at the end of a pint for a pub is minuscule, and it is so far from reality to say that the Government are pro-pubs. How does she respond to all the pubs across the country that are crying out for change?

[Lucy Rigby]

I was talking about our new pro-growth licensing policy framework, which was announced in the Budget. If the hon. Member is referring specifically to business rates, as I think he might be, we have made it clear that we are continuing to talk to the sector about any support beyond the existing £4.3 billion support package that the Chancellor announced in the Budget.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for speaking about an imminent decision on business rates, but this is not just about business rates. The Victoria Inn in Mumbles in my constituency has not banned me as a Labour MP—it has not banned any Labour MPs—but it would like to extend an invitation to those on the Front Bench to visit Mumbles, come to the pub and have that conversation, because it is a positive conversation about how the Government are listening and moving forward.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that invitation. It is one that I will be taking up, as I would love to join her in that public house in her constituency.

Importantly, continuing to freeze alcohol duty would primarily support cheaper alcohol in the off-trade—for instance, alcohol sold in shops and supermarkets—and have only a small indirect impact on the hospitality sector. That is because, as hon. Members will know, alcohol duty is paid by producers, not by pubs, and 73% of alcohol consumed in the UK is purchased from shops, rather than in pubs, restaurants and bars. The Government’s decision to uprate alcohol duty in line with inflation is therefore not only prudent for the public finances; it also balances important considerations, and the contribution of alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector, with the need to support public services such as the NHS.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I appreciate the Minister giving way. I have noticed that more and more of my constituents are drinking non-alcoholic beer, and that there the number of people taking alcohol is reducing. That sometimes puts pubs under particular pressure, but people can still go out socialising and have a meal and a non-alcoholic drink. Would it be possible to promote that through this Bill, because I believe we should be looking at that growing market?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, as always, for his intervention. I was about to talk about the strength-based duty system introduced by the previous Government on 1 August 2023, following the alcohol duty review. The new alcohol duty system taxes all alcoholic products according to their strength, so duty increases with alcohol content, which represents a progressive shift. The reforms introduced two new reliefs: the draught relief, which reduced the duty burden on draught products sold at on-trade venues; and small producer relief, which replaced the previous small brewers relief and aims to support small and medium-sized enterprises and new entrants.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Minister rightly refers to draught beer and cider relief, and she said earlier that her concern about freezing alcohol duties was that most of the benefit would be going to supermarkets and other places that sell beer cheaply. Surely she recognises that what the Chancellor should have done is reduce the draught rate, as happened last year, so that the full benefit would have gone to licensed premises, as they are the only venues that can sell the draught drinks covered by that rate.

[Lucy Rigby]

My point was that the benefit of the decision not to update alcohol duty will be felt mostly in the off-trade, which is a point that the hon. Gentleman appears to understand.

The small producer relief aims to support SMEs and new entrants by permitting smaller producers to pay reduced duty rates. Clause 86 maintains the generosity of the small producer relief, compared with main duty rates. The changes introduced by the clause maintain the real-terms value of alcohol duty, and balance the need to support alcohol producers, pubs and the wider hospitality sector with the need to support the public finances. Further to that, the changes also support smaller producers by maintaining the generosity of small producer relief. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. Both the publicans I am talking about are working in excess of 70 hours a week. They have laid off staff, meaning fewer jobs for those who might be able to engage in entry-level occupations. It is hitting employment as well as other aspects of the economy.

Too many local pubs in my constituency, as in so many others, have shut, and other publicans are considering leaving the sector. When they go, communities lose a key institution that brings people together at the heart of their villages. That is why I strongly support the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 9, which would ensure an assessment of the cumulative effect of this Government’s careless assault on the hospitality sector.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to all Members for their contributions to today’s debate. Almost all of them have spoken passionately about their local pubs. I specifically acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), just to deny him the pleasure of my not doing so.

We are taking a prudent and responsible decision to uprate alcohol duty in line with RPI. That is fully assumed in the OBR’s baseline forecast, so failing to uprate would come at a real cost.

[Mike Wood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am going to make some progress. Based on HMRC’s ready reckoner, freezing alcohol duty would cost the Exchequer around £400 million a year. That money, despite the Opposition’s best efforts to pretend otherwise, would have to be found elsewhere. This is one of the measures that assists in ensuring that our economy is strengthened and our future prosperity more secure. Indeed, it does that without taking the axe to public services or to investment. Those policies from the Conservatives had catastrophic consequences for all our constituents.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am going to make a bit more progress.

New clauses 8, 9 and 26 would require the Government to publish reports on the impacts of alcohol duty. The shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), invited me to refer to our tax information and impact note, and I will take him up on that invitation. As is usual practice, our note was published at the Budget. It outlined the anticipated impacts of this measure for alcohol producers and the hospitality sector. Because this uprating maintains the current real-terms value of the duty, the Government do not expect it to have significant macroeconomic impacts, including to the employment rate or hospitality businesses’ costs, where a duty on drinks will have comparable relative bearing as now.

[Daisy Cooper]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

I will make some progress.

On the impacts on the public finances, HMRC publishes data on alcohol duty receipts quarterly. That data is reviewed alongside other evidence by the OBR when it produces its forecasts of alcohol duty receipts, as it did most recently alongside the November Budget. The Government’s view, as is evident from OBR-certified policy costings in recent years, remains that freezing or cutting alcohol duty rates reduces duty receipts.

The hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens raised the importance of producers of Scottish whisky, and I agree with him about that. This Government are supporting key Scottish industries, including whisky, such as through our free trade agreement with India, which will boost exports of whisky and add £190 million a year to the Scottish economy.

[John Lamont]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

No, I will make some progress.

The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore)—he represents a wonderful place in the world, which is where I was between Christmas and new year—referred to the difference between CPI and RPI. As he knows, we are uprating alcohol duty by RPI, as with many other taxes expressed in cash terms. He will know that RPI is widely used, and moving away from it is fraught with difficulty.

I want to address the important points about business rates and employer national insurance contributions. We have discussed this already and, as Members will know, the Bill does not contain measures on either of those subjects, so I will not accept an amendment relating to them. I reiterate, however, that pubs are at the heart of our communities and we want them to thrive. As I have said, today we have heard some heartfelt references to particular pubs and the role that they have played in each of our lives. I could tell my own stories in that regard, but none of us would get home in time.

As Members know, in the Budget the Chancellor introduced a £4.3 billion support package to give relief to those seeing increases in their business rates bills. As I said earlier, we have made it clear that we are continuing to work with and talk to the sector about that support, and about what further support we can provide and what action we can take.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Lucy Rigby]

I want to make this point. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), asked several questions. We will come forward with a support package—any further support that we will make available—when we are able to do so. As for her point about VAT, I know that an answer has been given to the parliamentary question asked by one of her colleagues about exactly that point, but I gently say to her—as, indeed, I have said to other Members during the debate—that if we want to cut taxes, the money has to come from somewhere. That has not been acknowledged at all.

I therefore propose that new clauses 8, 9 and 26 should be rejected and that clause 86 should stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Contingencies Fund Advance: National Savings & Investments

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

HM Treasury has agreed additional resource departmental expenditure limit and capital DEL funding for National Savings & Investments, supporting NS&I’s business transformation programme, which will see it transition to a modernised operating model, with multiple service delivery partners.

Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £40,000,000 and capital of £69,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for NS&I. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £109,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

[HCWS1233]

National Savings & Investments: Contingent Liabilities

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

I am today laying a departmental minute to advise that National Savings & Investments is retrospectively informing Parliament about two new contingent liabilities not previously disclosed, due to procedural oversight by NS&I.

These contingent liabilities have arisen from NS&I’s transition from a single-supplier service delivery model to a multi-supplier model. They relate to operational losses and fraud losses. Operational losses are compensatory payments made to customers due to error, default, fraud or change in the administration of NS&I’s products. Fraud losses are a subset of operational losses and in this instance relate to customer compromise through no fault of the suppliers.

In 2020, NS&I launched a transformation programme to modernise its operational systems, transitioning from a long-standing, single-supplier service delivery model to a multi-supplier model. This transformation introduced new service delivery partners and redistributed responsibilities across the entire customer journey.

Due to multiple handovers within NS&I and increased complexity of processes, it became necessary to redistribute loss liabilities among suppliers and assign them based on fault. Unlike the previous service model, no single supplier has end-to-end ownership of the service. Consequently, suppliers have limited or no control over certain stages and the associated risk management. Each supplier is therefore accountable only for the areas they directly manage. Where a customer is compromised through no fault of any of the suppliers, liability rests with NS&I, who may then seek recovery from third parties such as the customer’s nominated bank.

Following the delivery of a major programme milestone at the end of September 2025, the number of processes split across multiple suppliers has reduced as of October 2025. This will lessen the complexity associated with establishing and apportioning liability. However, some risk will remain in allocating responsibility. This is because multiple suppliers continue to deliver elements of the end-to-end service with underlying processes measured by their customer outcomes rather than by their individual components.

A key benefit of NS&I’s revised delivery model is that, unlike the previous single-supplier arrangement where potential losses were built into a risk premium, NS&I will now only bear actual losses that occur. This change ensures greater transparency and delivers better value for taxpayers. Under the new framework, NS&I will determine liability based on clear evidence of fault across multiple suppliers, reinforcing accountability and improving cost-efficiency.

A small portion of the estimated operational losses has been identified for the 2025-26 financial year; however, no disbursements have yet occurred pending HM Treasury consent. Where investigations subsequently identify a responsible supplier, NS&I will seek recovery of costs under contractual provisions.

It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for that Department’s Minister to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

However, at the time the potential liabilities were initially assessed, NS&I concluded that they constituted part of its “normal course of business” as described by “Managing Public Money” and the contingent liability approval framework. This was on the basis that the occurrence of such liabilities was considered to arise from its core function of raising cost-effective financing for Government by issuing and selling retail savings products to the public. Following a more extensive review and discussion with HM Treasury, NS&I has subsequently determined that the new service delivery model resulted in NS&I taking on liabilities that were previously retained by a single supplier, giving rise to the two contingent liabilities.

Given the initial assessment of the nature of the expense, it is regrettable that NS&I was unable to provide the House with the normal period for consideration prior to the contingent liabilities being entered into. NS&I therefore acknowledges that Parliament was not informed earlier and apologises for this procedural non-compliance. Steps have been taken to strengthen internal assurance processes to ensure full compliance with parliamentary expectations and “Managing Public Money”.

The lifetime potential exposure for operational losses excluding fraud losses is estimated at £460,000, with only a small portion currently identified for clearance. Actual costs are expected to be materially lower, and some may be recoverable from suppliers. In addition, the lifetime potential exposure for fraud losses is £1.6 million bringing the total combined lifetime exposure to approximately £2.06 million.

NS&I has sought retrospective consent from HM Treasury.

If any of these contingent liabilities crystallise, provision for payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.

[HCWS1201]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

The shadow Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), took the time to mention Father Christmas and Tinder. I thought he might also have taken a moment to welcome the fourth major trade deal secured by this Government and signed today with South Korea, which is set to boost our economy by £400 million, but that was obviously too much to ask.

It is an honour to close this Second Reading debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for opening the debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members who made contributions. I look forward to hearing further contributions during the rest of the Bill’s passage.

Before I turn to the points made during today’s debate, let me be clear about the purpose of the Bill. I will frame it in the context of choices, because so many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have done the same. Put simply, the Bill delivers the fair, responsible and necessary choices required to strengthen our economy and cut borrowing, to return our public services to health, to back British entrepreneurs and to make people better off. Those are the choices that this Government are making.

[Dave Doogan]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

Not yet.

We have heard absolutely nothing from the Opposition that acknowledges that they made the wrong choices. Indeed, what we heard just now from the shadow Financial Secretary and earlier from the shadow Chancellor was a masterclass in selective amnesia. People would be forgiven for thinking that Members on the shadow Treasury Bench were not living in this country during their period of Government, let alone running it. They have conveniently forgotten that their choices gave us appallingly low productivity, threadbare public services, ballooning welfare spending and real wage stagnation. Those were their choices, and it is little wonder that they do not to want to remember them, let alone be judged on them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Lucy Rigby]

I will make a bit of progress. Our choices are different: they seek to rebuild and repair our country and our economy. They are choices to renew our public services and reform our welfare system; we are rebuilding our NHS, helping to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and investing in getting more people into work. They are choices to strengthen our economy; we are maintaining the highest level of public investment for 40 years, backing British aspiration and, importantly, cutting borrowing and doubling the headroom against our fiscal rules.

[Graham Stuart]

If we look at employment over time, we see that employment was growing every month until a certain thing happened in July last year: Labour came to power. As of this morning, unemployment has officially gone up 5.1%. As it stands today, there is a 25% increase in the number of people who are not in employment. How can that possibly correspond with a mission for growth?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am afraid to tell the right hon. Gentleman that employment is rising in every single year of the forecast.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) raised the importance of getting debt and borrowing down. I could not agree more. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about spending over £100 billion a year on servicing our debt. That is more than five times our annual policing budget. It is money that could be spent on schools, hospitals and the urgent public service renewal that this country so desperately needs. That is exactly why, under this autumn Budget, borrowing falls in every year of the forecast, and we are bringing the national debt under control. The Chancellor is putting in place the fastest rate of fiscal consolidation in the G7, and she is doubling the headroom to £21.7 billion.

[Dave Doogan]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she concede that approximately three quarters of the last three hours of debate on this Bill has been devoted to the egregious family farm tax, including two noble and articulate contributions from Labour Beck Benchers, which took some bravery? Will she take that message back to the Chancellor, and get her to finally scrap the family farm tax?

[Lucy Rigby]

It is not a concession to acknowledge that that was the topic of much of the debate. We are more than aware of the strength of feeling on inheritance tax and the cost pressures that farmers are under, and I appreciate the compassion with which hon. Members have made their arguments. I remind them that that is why the Government came forward with the changes announced at the Budget just a few weeks ago. Following those changes to both APR and BPR, surviving spouses can pass on double the tax-free allowance, making the system more fair and simple for farmers.

A core part of strengthening our economy is about backing British businesses to reach their full potential. That means backing British innovation and aspiration and giving entrepreneurs what they need to start up, scale up, list and grow here in the UK. That is why this Bill significantly expands the enterprise management incentive scheme limits to maintain the world-leading nature of this relief.

[John Grady]

Does the Minister agree that it is due to the careful management of the public finances that we have record investment in defence and other areas of the Scottish economy, creating lots of well-paid jobs in Glasgow?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

The Scottish Government have been given a record settlement—a £820 million boost in this Budget—that takes the total additional funding for the Scottish Government from this Labour Government to more than £10 billion.

I was talking about the entrepreneurship package in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) said, we are doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the generous enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes. We are making them more generous, and are supporting more investment in companies that are making the transition from start-up to scale-up, and we are not stopping there.

When some of our most innovative, high-growth companies succeed, bringing jobs and growth to our economy, we want them to list here, too. That is why this Bill ensures that companies that list here in the UK will benefit from a stamp duty holiday on their shares for the first three years on the market—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan). We are backing British entrepreneurs and ensuring that the UK remains one of the most attractive places in the world to found, scale and list a business.

Let me address the point referred to by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) about the application of the measures that I have just spoken about to Northern Ireland. I can assure him that Northern Irish service companies will benefit from the expansion of the scheme, and goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland will continue to benefit from the previous scheme limits.

[Jim Allister]

The key is in the point that the Minister finally made there; that is under the previous scheme. Northern Ireland is not to get the uplift that the rest of the United Kingdom does under clauses 13 to 15. Why? Because we are subject to EU state aid rules. We are being held back by the old rules, whereas everywhere else in the United Kingdom gets the new uplift.

[Lucy Rigby]

I assure the hon. and learned Member, who makes a valid point, that there are hardly any—very few, if any—of these types of goods and wholesale electricity companies in Northern Ireland that come close to the existing limits of the scheme, let alone the extended limits.

We are very clear about the role of business and economic growth in improving household incomes, but we are also clear that after the Opposition gave this country the worst Parliament on record for living standards, far too many people are still struggling with the cost of living. This Government are already making progress to tackle that. Wages have gone up more in the first year of this Government than in the entire first decade of the last Government. Real household disposable income was £800 higher in the first year of this Parliament than in the last year under the Tories, but we know that there is more to do.It is because of the fair and necessary choices in this Bill that we are able to help ease the cost of living for millions of families across this country. Those choices are how we are cutting energy bills for millions of households by an average of £150 per year and extending the warm homes plan. They are how we are lifting the two-child cap and, with it, lifting half a million children in this country out of poverty. They are how we are freezing prescription charges and rail fares, and increasing the national living wage while protecting the triple lock on pensions. This is a Government who are committed to helping people with the cost of living, to putting more money in people’s pockets, and the choices we are making in this Bill do just that.

My hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) are absolutely right that the choices this Government are making in this Finance Bill will help restore our public services. Those choices are why the Chancellor is able to put libraries in primary schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby referred to, and they are why she is able to protect NHS budgets as well. They are why she is able to invest an extra £300 million in NHS technology, roll out 250 new neighbourhood health centres right across this country, and continue to get waiting lists—which stood at a record high when this Government came to power—back under control. That means millions more people able to access the healthcare they need, free at the point of use; millions more people getting the operations, preventive care and scans they need. It is how we will be able to repair our NHS and ensure it will continue to exist for the next generation and for many generations to come.

This Finance Bill is about delivering on our commitments. It is about building a stronger economy in which prosperity and living standards rise, child poverty falls, businesses succeed and public services are renewed. Every measure in this Bill is geared towards that goal. We promised change and fairness, and we are delivering both. For those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

5. What progress she has made on the financial inclusion strategy. [R]

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

We published the financial inclusion strategy last month, outlining ambitious measures that will improve financial inclusion right across the country. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her advocacy on this issue through the all-party parliamentary group on debt and financial inclusion. In line with the priorities outlined by the APPG, the strategy champions inclusive design to make products more accessible, increases debt advice capacity and supports financial independence for survivors of economic abuse.

[Katrina Murray]

I welcome the Minister’s response. I am a long-standing member of the NHS credit union, which is one of the credit unions affected by the withdrawal of the family protection plan by CMutual on 30 November. Policyholders over the age of 70 who have paid premiums well in excess of what they would have expected to have paid out have been left in the lurch with no alternative provision given. I thank the Minister for what she has done so far in pursuing peace of mind for those who have tried to do the right thing and planned for their funerals, but in the interim, can she bring all the stakeholders to the table to try to reach a solution that benefits those policyholders in particular?

[Lucy Rigby]

As my hon. Friend knows, I have been very sorry to hear of the difficulties of those affected by the withdrawal of that product. I pay tribute to her for all her efforts and those of her colleagues. They are doing everything possible to assist constituents. My officials are monitoring the matter very closely. We encourage anyone with information relevant to the Financial Conduct Authority’s investigation to go straight to the FCA. However, I would be more than happy to do as she suggests and get the stakeholders together.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Access to banking is surely a key part of financial inclusion. The high street banks save £2 billion a year from having abandoned our high streets and town centres. Our post offices pick up the tab and we are glad that they do, but they are not funded by the banks anywhere near enough to be able to maintain their presence. In Westmorland, we have lost Hawkshead, Staveley and Grasmere post offices, and we are set to lose Shap and Tebay largely because the banks do not fund the post offices for doing their jobs properly. What is the Chancellor going to do to make them do that?

[Lucy Rigby]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. We very much understand the importance of in-person banking, including in beautiful, rural communities such as those that he represents. That is exactly why we are committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs right across the UK by the end of this Parliament. Over 240 hubs have been announced so far and more than 190 are already open.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] No, please just sit down. Don’t challenge me; it is not a good idea. We did quite a few days on the Budget. I think we can all remember every point you are making. Is there anything you would like to add? If you are carrying on the list, forget it. I call the Minister.

[Lucy Rigby]

The shadow Minister makes reference to a number of changes in the Budget that were pragmatic, responsible and fair. I contrast that with the Conservatives’ approach, which would return us to austerity. That would be both irresponsible and unfair.

[Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of changes to business rates on the hospitality sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

13. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to support entrepreneurs.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

The recent Budget backed British innovation and aspiration by supporting businesses to start, scale and list in the UK. We have put in place a three-year listing tax relief for firms that list here, and we are expanding enterprise tax reliefs to incentivise investment in scaling firms. That means more jobs, more growth, and more British companies competing globally.

[Jack Abbott]

Over the last 18 months I have been working hard to drive investment into my town, county and region, and I was proud to unveil the east of England’s £4 billion investment prospectus at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum earlier this year. I am also keen to encourage our own home-grown entrepreneurs in Ipswich and Suffolk so that we can better support innovative and high-growth businesses. Can the Minister outline how the three-year stamp duty exemption on shares, alongside other measures in the Budget, will seek to do that?

[Lucy Rigby]

At the Budget, we introduced the UK listing relief, which incentivises companies to list in the UK. The UK raised more equity capital in 2024 than was raised in the next three European exchanges combined. I look forward to seeing the brilliant entrepreneurs in my hon. Friend’s constituency benefit from these deep pools of capital.

[John Slinger]

In my constituency, I can combine rugby and gin, so I am grateful to the Chancellor for the measures in her Budget to help the hospitality trade and small businesses. Following, my visit to the family-owned Rugby Distillery—branded and flavoured around the game—can I ask what steps her Department could try to level the playing field, such as by extending small producer relief to alcohol above the 8.5% ABV limit? Small-scale producers find it harder to compete fairly with big producers, and we must help them to tackle their challenges and convert their entrepreneurial spirit into greater success.

[Lucy Rigby]

As someone who enjoys both rugby and gin, sometimes at the same time, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s support for the businesses in his constituency. To support spirits producers, the Government have put in place a range of measures. As for small producer relief, I know that the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is open to evidence on the operation of the new system. I should add that the Government plan to evaluate the reforms in late 2026, which will be three years after they took effect.

[Mr Speaker]

I presume you mean rugby league as well.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

In east Kent, an entrepreneurial chain of 25 coffee bars employs young people who otherwise would probably be unemployable. The profit margin on those 25 coffee bars for the last year was £12. The hospitality industry is on its knees. Will the Chancellor recognise the need to cut VAT on hospitality to 10%?

[Lucy Rigby]

As has been covered by my colleagues, we are putting in a £4 billion support package and continuing to engage with the hospitality sector. I should also add that we are easing licensing to help venues offer pavement drinks and one-off events too.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the changes to the listings review, but will the Minister look at what is happening with research and development tax credits and the efficiency of the delivery of those tax credits, because when the system does not work well enough, businesses are struggling before they get to listing?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his question, as I always am. We are doing an awful lot to support R&D in this country, including through many of the measures announced at the Budget. That includes putting an additional £7 billion into specific areas within the industrial strategy.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

9. What fiscal steps she is taking to support industry in the Forth valley.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

The Government of course recognise that innovation is key to our long-term economic growth and to higher productivity, and indeed to living standards. That is exactly why we are investing more in R&D, and we have made other incentives available too.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has been a rocky week for the Office for Budget Responsibility, so I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recognises and has reiterated the value of an independent regulator in this space. Nevertheless, a lot of criticism of the OBR is swirling around. Would the Chief Secretary or the Chancellor like to remind people about the role of the fiscal risks and sustainability report, which does look longer term at the economy, and the importance that this has in planning? As the Chancellor said, it is not destiny just because of the figures, but that report is particularly useful in that respect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T7. There is agreement across the House on the importance of access to cash, as well as on the importance of access to banking services, which are critical for high streets in areas such as Cupar and Letham in my constituency. When will the Government agree to have the Financial Conduct Authority review the criteria for access to banking services? There are to be 350 banking hubs, but that is a meaningless number if communities continue to lose face-to-face services.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am afraid that I must disagree with the hon. Lady when she says that 350 is a meaningless number, but of course we understand the importance of in-person banking for rural communities. The location of banking hubs is determined independently by Link, and the criteria are a matter for the FCA, but I regularly meet MPs to discuss the adequacy and the application of those rules. In fact, there will be a banking hub surgery for Members of Parliament tomorrow, and she is more than welcome to join it.

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the second rise in the national minimum wage under this Government. Some 160,000 workers in Wales have already benefited since the rise in April. Many of them are younger workers, particularly in the retail and hospitality sector, which is so important to my constituency at Christmas and beyond. What assessment has been made of the impact of the national minimum wage rise on younger workers, and what progress has been made on equalising the national minimum wage with the national minimum wage for under-21s?

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025 Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 General Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025.

[Lucy Rigby]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.

I turn first to the environmental, social and governance ratings order, which I note the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee flagged as an instrument of interest in its 41st report. The draft order will bring the provision of ESG ratings within the regulatory perimeter of the Financial Conduct Authority. Regulation will improve standards in the market, boost investor confidence and reduce greenwashing, and it has strong support across the financial sector.

As hon. Members will be aware, ESG ratings are a spectrum of products usually marketed as providing an assessment of the ESG profile, characteristics, risk exposures or impacts associated with a company, fund or other financial instrument. ESG ratings are widely relied on by investors to guide investment decisions in line with sustainability risks, opportunities and preferences. Of the £10 trillion-worth of assets under management in the UK in 2024, half had integrated ESG factors into the investment process. In the UK in 2024, more than 5,400 firms were using ESG ratings.

However, the ESG ratings market has developed rapidly and without formal oversight. This has led stakeholders and users to raise concerns about transparency, governance, internal controls and potential conflicts of interest within ESG ratings providers. Identifying these concerns, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions published recommendations for ESG ratings and data providers, calling for higher standards and sufficient oversight in the sector. The Government have acted quickly to deliver progress on this important agenda.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome this measure, but what work have the Government done to ensure that the regulation will be in line with that of international regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, to reduce the burden on our businesses?

[Lucy Rigby]

We remain open to the prospect of regulatory alignment with other regimes. We want to get this done first, but the hon. Gentleman raises an important point.

As I say, the Government have acted quickly to deliver progress. As hon. Members will know, a consultation was issued by the previous Government; this Government have ensured that the consultation response and draft legislation were published for technical comments as part of the Chancellor’s first Mansion House speech. That draft legislation has been refined into the ESG ratings order before the Committee.

The draft order will create a new regulated activity of providing an ESG rating where that rating is likely to influence a decision to make a specified investment. This will require providers of ESG ratings to be authorised and be supervised by the FCA. In recognition of the fact that ESG ratings are provided by a range of different persons, the scope of the regulated activity is designed to be proportionate to the risk of harm, avoiding dual regulation and maintaining consistency with the existing regulatory framework. The draft order contains specific exclusions to that effect, for example where a firm is providing ESG ratings as part of another regulated activity.

To support the integrity of the UK market and ensure a level playing field, ESG ratings that are provided to a UK customer by an overseas provider will fall into the scope of the regulated activity, except where those ratings are provided without remuneration or financial incentive. The Government support open, competitive and internationally connected financial markets, and we therefore intend to give further consideration to market access arrangements for overseas ESG ratings providers.

In the interests of allowing plenty of time for industry to engage, while also delivering a regulatory regime in a timely manner, the FCA launched its consultation on the specific regulations for ESG ratings providers on 1 December, on the basis that the draft order had been laid on 27 October. The FCA rules will be designed to be proportionate and tailored to address harms while protecting innovation, in line with the regulator’s secondary growth and competitiveness objective.

The proposal to bring ESG ratings providers into regulation has received strong support from industry. The move will strengthen market integrity and boost investor confidence, helping the sector to attract new users and providers. The draft order is a core part of the Government’s agenda to drive growth in the UK’s sustainable finance market.

The draft prudential regulation of credit institutions regulations are a technical instrument that makes changes to support reforms to UK banking regulation. The regulations will keep our legislation for financial services effective, and they will assist the Treasury in applying the FSMA model of regulation to set a prudential framework for banks. The regulations do not introduce any new regulatory requirements for firms.

As hon. Members will be aware, banks are required to follow a set of prudential regulations to manage their risk appropriately and maintain adequate levels of capital to protect against any losses. In addition, the biggest banks are required to hold additional loss-absorbing debt to ensure that they can be allowed to fail without the need for taxpayer-funded bail-outs such as those seen during the global financial crisis.

A significant amount of prudential regulation is set out in the capital requirements regulation, or CRR, which formed part of domestic law during our time as an EU member state. Following our exit from the EU, the Government have been tailoring the existing financial services framework to the UK’s needs. That includes the CRR, which will be removed from the statute book and largely restated in the Prudential Regulation Authority’s rulebook, providing more flexibility and allowing the PRA to set the relevant requirements.

To do that, legislation has been passed to revoke the CRR—notably in FSMA 2021 and FSMA 2023. In that context, the Government have brought forward these technical regulations to make a small number of consequential amendments to pieces of legislation that refer to specific CRR articles—specifically, they amend the Banking Act 2009 to ensure that definitions relating to share capital instruments and banks’ own funds reflect the revocation of certain CRR articles.

In summary, although these draft regulations are technical and do not introduce any new rules, they are nevertheless a necessary step in continuing the reform of our banking regulation to ensure that our regulatory framework remains coherent. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I welcome the consensus on the draft regulations. Four principal points were raised in relation to the draft order. The first was on the international position, and the recommendations we are putting in place in this draft order are in line with the IOSCO and OECD recommendations. The EU framework has been legislated for, but it will not come into force until 2026. In many areas of financial services, we have the ability to put in place an overseas recognition regime—an ORR. We do not yet have the ability to do that in relation to this, but we hope to take the power in the next financial services Bill to enable us to bring forward exactly this kind of measure where we wish to do so. The shadow Minister might be aware that Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan have codes of conduct of this nature.

In relation to charities—this is a good point and was considered—the scope of the regulated activity set out in the draft order is designed to be proportionate to the risk of harm. As such, charities will be excluded from regulation where a rating is provided on an occasional or one-off basis, or where there is no remuneration or other financial benefit provided to the charity. As I said, this approach, informed by consultation, ensures that the regulation is risk-based and proportionate while avoiding loopholes.

The shadow Minister also mentioned defence. The Chancellor has stated very clearly her view that supporting the defence industry, and indeed Ukraine, is consistent with ethical investing. The regulation will allow investors to more fairly evaluate ESG risks and opportunities related to defence companies. I should make it clear that we have engaged extensively with the defence sector, and we think there is quite limited evidence that defence firms have struggled to access finance on ESG grounds.

Briefly, the fiduciary duty is important and, as the shadow Minister knows, it has been much discussed. The Pensions Minister will address it further in subsequent stages of the Pension Schemes Bill.

[Gareth Davies]

I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the Government’s position on defence stocks. I wonder whether she could do the same for oil and gas.

[Lucy Rigby]

The point in relation to oil and gas is exactly the same as that for defence. There is no conflict between what we are doing here and investment in those areas. If anything, it will be helpful across the board. Fiduciary duty was the final point raised, so I will leave it there.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS ACT 2000 (REGULATED ACTIVITIES) (ESG RATINGS) ORDER 2025

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (ESG Ratings) Order 2025.—(Lucy Rigby.)

Financial Inclusion Strategy

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

Today, I have laid the financial inclusion strategy—Command Paper 1424. Financial inclusion means that people can access the financial products and services they need. When people are financially excluded, every day is harder, plans are precarious, and a financial setback can snowball into a crisis. But when people are included, a potential shock can become a manageable obstacle, and aspirations can become achievements. These benefits have knock-on effects for our wider society, making financial inclusion a bridge to opportunity and an engine for growth.

I want to see a financial services system that works for everyone, where people can access the products and services they need to build their financial resilience and achieve their goals. The strategy sets out our approach to improving financial inclusion and, in turn, ensuring that everyone can access the financial products they need to participate fully in the economy, manage their money well, and plan for the future.

The strategy brings together a package of initiatives to improve access to financial services and strengthen financial resilience across the UK. This builds on the Government’s existing progress, such as the ongoing roll-out of 350 banking hubs, and looks to future opportunities, such as the development of a new digital pass which can help people prove their identity. It is structured around six key pillars: banking and digital inclusion; savings; insurance; credit; problem debt; and financial education and capability. Three themes of mental health, accessibility, and economic abuse have been considered throughout to ensure that interventions address the specific barriers consumers affected by those issues can face. Through these areas of focus, the strategy also supports wider Government priorities, including building household financial resilience and driving sustainable economic growth. Its measures include:

Action to tackle the impact of economic abuse on victim-survivors’ credit scores, enabling people to regain their financial independence following the devastating impact of abuse;

A new pilot taken forward by the largest banks to open bank accounts for people who struggle to access mainstream banking, such as people experiencing homelessness;

A new national coalition of employers to support organisations to help their employees save for unforeseen circumstances;

Action to drive greater accessibility of products for people who can face challenges in using essential financial services, such as people with disabilities and mental health conditions.

The strategy has been developed with the support of a financial inclusion committee of consumer and industry representatives. It has also been informed by extensive engagement with wider stakeholders across Government, regulators, civil society, and the financial services sector. I would like to thank all those who have contributed their time and expertise to the development of this important work.

This strategy will be delivered in partnership across Government, regulators, civil society, and the financial services sector. The UK Government will also continue to engage closely with the devolved Governments on areas of shared and devolved responsibility. Together, we will work to support consumers to build financial confidence, resilience, and wellbeing.

This strategy will guide Government and industry activity to promote financial inclusion, and it will be reviewed in two years’ time to ensure that progress is made.

The financial inclusion strategy is available on gov.uk: www.gov.uk/government/publications/financial-inclusion-strategy

[HCWS1019]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

2. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of access to banking services in rural areas.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

The Government understand the importance of in-person banking to communities, and we are working closely with industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the United Kingdom. More than 240 hubs have been announced so far, and more than 180 are already open. I know that that includes two in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I look forward to our upcoming meeting to discuss her constituents’ banking needs.

[Caroline Voaden]

When Labour was in opposition, its shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), welcomed measures to protect access to cash, but was concerned about the fact that they did

“nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services.”—[Official Report, 26 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 71.]

Such services go beyond a banking hub, but they are now vanishing. While the Financial Conduct Authority is responsible for access to cash, it appears that there is no Government body overseeing access to face-to-face banking services. Does the Minister agree that new regulation is needed to support residents and businesses in rural areas, especially as banks will prevent customers from cashing cheques in post offices from January?

[Lucy Rigby]

We recognise the important role that post offices, in particular, play in providing essential banking services as well as banking hubs. Decisions about which services are available at post offices—such as cheque deposits—are made by banks as part of their commercial arrangements. I should emphasise that customers continue to have other options for paying in cheques, which I know is an issue for the hon. Member; in the case of Lloyds, it can be done via Freepost. As I have said, I look forward to discussing these issues further with the hon. Member during our meeting.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

One way of improving access to banking in rural and, indeed, urban areas would be to increase the reach and role of community banks, or community development finance institutions. Given that CDFIs play a big role in American economic life and are backed to do so by the biggest banks, would it not be good if our biggest banks helped to fund their expansion here as well?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend is well versed in all these areas, and has done considerable work in this regard. As I have said, the banks play a role in providing access to cash, for instance via post office banking services.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

In this month of blaming everyone else for every woe that befalls the Government and using it as an excuse to bust manifesto pledges left, right and centre, it seems that the Government are claiming credit for more banking hubs, but we all know that the rolling out of banking hubs is a purely commercial decision by the banks. It is the banks that are choosing to do this, to serve their customers. Is it now the Government’s policy to blame everyone else for their own incompetences, and to claim credit for everyone else’s good ideas?

[Lucy Rigby]

Where it is appropriate to do so—indeed, it is very often appropriate to do so—we will blame the Conservative party for the state of the country, and it is appropriate to do so here. On the criteria that Link uses for banking hubs, I will remind the hon. Gentleman that, in relation to the access to cash regime, that was designed and passed by the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her years of work to further financial inclusion both during her time here and prior to Parliament. This is a timely question, because tomorrow we will publish the Government’s financial inclusion strategy, which sets out an ambitious programme of measures to improve financial inclusion and resilience for communities right across the UK.

[Gill Furniss]

Earlier this year, I chaired a roundtable with the all-party parliamentary group on debt and financial inclusion that highlighted our five key asks. Nearly 70% of adults in my constituency are considered to be in financially vulnerable circumstances—among the highest proportions in the city. What steps does the Minister plan to take to measure the impact of the financial inclusion strategy? Will she meet me to discuss that?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. As part of developing the strategy, the Government have engaged with Financial Inclusion Committee members and other organisations on how to measure the impact of the strategy, and indeed to drive its delivery. The strategy’s implementation will be reviewed two years from publication against outcomes-based metrics to provide an update on progress. I will be more than happy to meet her to discuss this.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

When I was Economic Secretary, against the advice of officials I advanced something called the no interest loan scheme. I am given to believe that one of the Minister’s two predecessors since the general election may have suspended that valuable attempt to support the most vulnerable in society. Will she look at that again in advance of the Budget in three weeks? There really was wide cross-party support for it.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am aware of the scheme that the right hon. Member talks about. He will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the launch of the strategy tomorrow, nor indeed the Budget, but I would be more than happy to meet him to talk about it in more detail.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

T1.    If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

T7.   My constituents in Airdrie and Shotts, along with many others across the country, will be impacted by the decision of Maiden Life Försäkrings to withdraw family protection plan cover. I understand that the Chancellor may be aware of this issue, so will her Department investigate this matter and consider what assistance might be available to those affected?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

I am indeed aware of this issue. I know that it affects people in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in plenty of other Members’ constituencies, too. I also know how concerned he and other Members are about it. It is for the Financial Conduct Authority to consider whether it is appropriate to take any further steps, but I have asked my officials to engage with the FCA on how it is approaching this.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

Economists have told the Chancellor that stamp duty is a terrible tax because it damages growth. The Government’s response is to double stamp duty on a £300,000 house. Why?

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. I especially thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) for his speech at the start, and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) for bringing forward this debate. I also thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) for concluding on behalf of the Opposition.

With those niceties over, I turn to the substance of the motion we are debating, which, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, is fundamentally flawed. Despite the Leader of the Opposition’s seemingly steadfast commitment to having no policy at all, which has now been very much abandoned, Conservative Members have looked back at their shockingly bad economic record and taken the rather extraordinary view that they are well placed to offer input and advice on the upcoming Budget, which is entirely a matter for the Chancellor to decide once she has seen the OBR’s forecast and which she will share with the House at the end of next month.

The Conservatives have looked at all of this, thought for seemingly quite a long time about it, and decided that now is the right moment to offer some policy. The solution to all the hardship they inflicted on the country during their time in power is more of the same: more unfunded tax cuts, more instability, more austerity, more harm to our public services and, dare I say it, more of the approach that meant that their penultimate Prime Minister was outlasted by a lettuce.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Economic Secretary give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

I will make some progress.

That is the Conservatives’ pitch to the British public—reckless with our public finances, reckless with our public services and reckless with the future of this country. Conservative Members are competing to say how sad and angry they are about this tax. They will be furious when they find out which party gave us the highest tax burden since the second world war! [Interruption.] The motion is a seemingly straight-faced argument from Conservative Members that we should do the exact thing that brought their 14 years of government to an end. It is proof that they have learned—

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is not my job to write yours or the Minister’s speech—if only. That was not a point of order.

[Lucy Rigby]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The motion is proof that the Conservatives have learned none of the lessons of their catastrophic mini-Budget or of the years of the punishing austerity that was inflicted on the people and institutions of this country, with nothing whatsoever to show for it but soaring debt, low productivity and devastated household finances.

Let me be clear that stamp duty is not a beloved tax—far from it; it is no more beloved than any other taxes—but it is an effective tax that raises billions of pounds annually, with those buying the most expensive properties contributing the most. That contribution is vital to the upkeep of our public services, our NHS, our schools and our armed forces. Abolishing it would take billions out of the public purse—£13.9 billion alone. It would be a multibillion-pound tax cut affecting the budgets of our most essential services.

It is the same horror show from the same old Conservatives, wildly swinging their scythe at public services without a care in the world for the consequences for our NHS, our schools and our armed forces. Which services would Conservative Members want to cut down this time? Would it be fewer nurses, fewer soldiers or fewer police officers? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are asking me whether I am asking them. I am more than aware that in the debate they referenced their fantasy economics based on welfare cuts. The shadow Chancellor oversaw the biggest increase in benefit spending in decades when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If he truly believes that welfare spending needs cutting, why did he let it balloon? We have heard from various hon. Members about their objections to this tax and about all sorts of things they imagine might be in the Budget.

[Graham Stuart]

Just to be clear, does the Minister agree that this is a bad tax? Would she, in a perfect world, seek to find ways of controlling public expenditure so that the tax could be removed and people across the country—first-time buyers and the elderly in particular—could benefit from that?

[Lucy Rigby]

It is a tax, so obviously I do not love it, but what I find extraordinary is the Conservative party’s new-found hatred of taxation when they increased taxes 25 times in the last Parliament.

As I said, we heard from various hon. Members about their objections to this tax. I will not engage on the points made about the Budget, for obvious reasons, except to repeat that we are committed to a single major fiscal event per year where the Chancellor will set out any tax decisions in the usual way alongside the OBR’s forecast. That fiscal event will take place, as everyone knows, on 26 November, at which point there will be plenty of time to discuss and debate the decisions that the Chancellor takes in the Budget.

I want to speak to some of the points raised during the debate. We heard plenty from Conservative Members about why they want to abolish stamp duty. I think some points were made thoughtfully; I say that in a well-meant way. I am sorry to say, however, that we heard absolutely nothing from Conservative Members on their appalling economic record. We heard nothing from them on their appalling record on house building—save for the acknowledgment of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—nothing on the waste of public money from the fraud on their watch, and nothing whatsoever that could be described as fiscal responsibility.

We heard from some of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches about the urgent need to build more houses in this country, given our appalling inheritance. That is the key way that we solve the housing crisis. I pay tribute to the thoughtful speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), and to my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), who spoke powerfully of the consequences of the Conservative party’s mismanagement of the economy, which include food banks, poverty and, of course, the housing crisis.

I welcome the commitment of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire. He talked about the need to build more housing and, indeed, about beautiful housing. I assure him that that is exactly the type of housing that this Government will facilitate being built—although I note that his colleagues took him straight back to opposing development no sooner had he made that point. I also welcome his mini-insight into the infighting of the last Government.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Lady may recall that it was a Labour Secretary of State who removed the word “beautiful” from the national planning policy framework. How does she expect to have those beautiful designs if that has been taken away as a standard within the guidance that her Government provided?

[Lucy Rigby]

I assure him that the houses will be beautiful and that we will build 1.5 million of them over the course of this Parliament. There was a brief reference to Nirvana from the Conservative Benches before a descent back into half-baked and unfunded plans, to which we on the Government Benches thought, “Well, Nevermind.”

[Sir James Cleverly]

Have a word with your officials; that was very bad.

[Sir Mel Stride]

Stick to the day job.

[Lucy Rigby]

Thank you. I was pleased to hear the Liberal Democrats spokesman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and others in the party say that they will oppose the motion. I wholeheartedly agree with her that it is fundamentally flawed.

To be clear, we are a Government of fiscal responsibility. Our steadfast commitment to the fiscal rules has brought stability to our economy and allowed us to boost investment by £120 billion over the course of this Parliament. The dividends of that approach, even after just a year, are already clear: the highest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year, cuts to interest rates, real wages rising more in the time since the last election than they did in 10 years of Conservative Government, record investments from overseas, and new homes and infrastructure progressing all over the country. That is a strong foundation to build on in the years ahead.

Today, we have debated a simple question of two visions for the country. Put another way, does this country go forwards or backwards? The Conservative party wants us to go back—back to its time in office, when Britain had a Government that pursued unfunded tax cuts and austerity, leading to soaring debt, low productivity, under-investment and anaemic growth. It was a Britain where we did not build infrastructure, including houses, and where far too many people were unable to get on the housing ladder.

This Government want the country to move forward. We are managing the public finances with stability and certainty in an uncertain world. We are a Government who invest in public services, our infrastructure and our communities, and work with businesses and local leaders to bring growth and opportunity to every part of the country. We are a Government who are building houses, including in areas of the country that the shadow Secretary of State—

[Sir James Cleverly]

She missed out the word “fewer”. It is “fewer houses”.

[Lucy Rigby]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am afraid that I am being interrupted. We are a Government who are building houses, including in areas of the country that the shadow Secretary of State has previously described in rather unparliamentary language. We are a Government who support working people with new jobs, higher wages and new homes. We are a Government who are committed to building 1.5 million new homes this Parliament and to restoring the dream of home ownership.

We are a Government who will not duck the difficult decisions but face into them, because that is the only way that we will deliver a decade of national renewal and a thriving economy for the people of this country. That is what today’s debate is about: backwards with fiscal irresponsibility from the Conservatives or forwards with economic stability, investment and reform under this Prime Minister and this Chancellor.

Question put.