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.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Mutual Recognition Agreement) (Switzerland) Regulations 2025

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Monday 27th October 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 (Mutual Recognition Agreement) (Switzerland) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.

The regulations will implement commitments made by the UK under the Berne financial services agreement of 2023, and will strengthen our economic relationship with Switzerland, one of the world’s leading financial centres. In short, they will provide greater certainty and flexibility for UK businesses, helping to ease cross-border trade in financial services and boosting growth. Importantly, they will maintain and enhance robust oversight and protection for UK consumers. I am pleased that the regulations have been welcomed across industry, including by TheCityUK, and I pay tribute to the previous Government for their work on the agreement during their time in office.

There are three key elements to the legislation, which establishes a new framework for market access, regulatory co-operation and safeguard powers for UK regulators. First, the regulations will remove duplicative and burdensome requirements for UK firms, making cross-border financial services trade with Switzerland easier, more stable and more predictable. The new framework will allow Swiss investment service firms to supply certain cross-border services directly to UK clients, including sophisticated and high net worth individuals, without the need for UK authorisation. In return, British businesses, especially insurers, will be able to provide certain services directly to Swiss clients without the need for Swiss authorisation. Importantly, insurance brokers will also be exempt from Swiss localisation rules.

Secondly, the legislation will protect consumers, market integrity and financial stability by ensuring that the new access arrangements are safe and well managed. New powers and duties will be granted to the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Bank of England. Thirdly, the regulations will establish enhanced co-operation arrangements between UK and Swiss regulators, which will be supported by a formal memorandum of understanding, signed on 22 September. This will support information sharing and effective dispute resolution and will facilitate the authorities’ relevant functions for the purposes of ensuring financial stability, market integrity and the protection of investors and consumers. The FCA and the Bank, as well as the PRA, will also work closely with their Swiss counterparts in FINMA to address any risks or issues that may emerge.

Should the Committee support the legislation today, as I hope it does, the agreement will enter into force in January 2026. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Financial Inclusion

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for securing this important debate and for giving me the opportunity to discuss a topic that is integral to the ability of his constituents, my constituents and all our constituents to participate not just in our economy, but in society as a whole. I also thank other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. From the number of interventions that have been made, it is clear that this is a very important issue to all of us throughout the House.

I think we can agree on the importance of ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to appropriate and affordable financial products and services. I really do appreciate the strength of feeling on the issue. I know that some Members present will have had the opportunity at recent party conferences, as I did, to engage with the likes of Fair4All Finance, the Centre for Social Justice, Rooted Finance and other organisations.

I pay tribute to TAG, the charitable organisation in my hon. Friend’s constituency that he mentioned, for the incredible work that it is doing to promote social inclusion for disabled people. I recognise the importance of that work and the need to go further to ensure that our financial system works for everyone; I will return to that point.

As my hon. Friend has set out, some of the statistics on financial inclusion in the UK are sobering: 900,000 people still do not have access to a bank account, 10% of adults have no savings, and another 21% of adults have less than £1,000 to draw on in the event of an emergency. When it comes to digital inclusion, which he raised, 3.3 million people—7% of current account holders—do not bank online or use a mobile banking app. However, I believe that this Government are on the cusp of making a real difference in that regard via the publication of our national financial inclusion strategy. Through that strategy, we can open up access to the right financial services, build households’ financial resilience and transform our constituents’ financial wellbeing.

However, I must stress that although the Treasury will publish the financial inclusion strategy, Government alone cannot solve some of the issues that we have been discussing today. We need a joint effort across industry, regulators and the third sector. That is exactly why I, along with my immediate predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), have developed our financial inclusion strategy, with the support of a committee made up of consumer and industry representatives.

The committee has been considering a range of barriers faced by those who are financially excluded, as well as three important, cross-cutting themes—economic abuse, mental health and accessibility. The latter theme is particularly relevant to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North has raised. He will appreciate that I am slightly limited in what I can say before the publication of the strategy, but I can confirm that the fact that accessibility is a cross-cutting theme has been important to the development of the strategy. It has prompted the committee to look closely at the role that inclusive design can play in improving accessibility for underserved groups. I also want to make it very clear that we will publish the strategy before the end of the year.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

A key part of financial inclusion is supporting young people to be included and ensuring that they have essential skills, including financial literacy. Has the Minister spoken with any colleagues in the Department for Education about how we can make sure that young people have the right essential skills, including financial literacy, as part of the strategy?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that we have had those discussions. I hope he will see the evidence of those discussions when the strategy is published, and I hope he will see them in a positive light.

I will now address the Government’s position on banking hub services and branch closures, in response to some of the points that have been raised today. I will then come on to some of the other points that have been raised, particularly discrimination in branches, which we must deal with, and digital exclusion.

As one would expect, the Financial Inclusion Committee and its sub-committees’ discussions reflect the fact that banking services have changed remarkably in recent years. Many people, including our vulnerable constituents, have benefited from digital innovations that have enabled them to bank more conveniently and securely at any time and from anywhere. Last year, the vast majority of current account holders—93%—used online or mobile banking services. That includes 75% of over-75s. At the same time, reliance on physical branches has declined significantly. However, the Government are clear about the importance of face-to-face banking to individuals and communities, and are committed to championing access for all. That is why we are working closely with the banks to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. More than 180 have already opened across the country, offering vital access to cash and everyday banking services.

We have also worked closely with the industry to improve the services that are available at those banking hubs. That includes ensuring that customers do not have to bring their own phone or tablet to access banking support, as well as a commitment to trial the use of printers, enhancing accessibility. We are committed to continuing to work with industry to ensure that banking services in hubs deliver the support that customers require.

I receive regular correspondence about the location of hubs. Hon. Members will know that the location of hubs is set by the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules, which protect access to cash. Although the Government do not have a role in that decision-making process, my predecessor and I have met with Link very regularly. Indeed, I have a meeting with John Howells coming up, and I regularly feed in hon. Members’ views.

Turning to discrimination in branches, I will specifically address the experience of the customers shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. It was, frankly, hard to hear some of those negative and no doubt damaging experiences. I want everyone to feel valued and respected in their interactions with financial services. I know we would all wish that.

As my hon. Friend knows, all service providers, including banks and building societies, are bound by the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments where necessary. In addition, under the FCA’s consumer duty, firms must identify where customers or groups are not getting good outcomes, and they must understand why. Although I set out that framework, we would always encourage people to contact their bank to explore reasonable adjustments to the services they might require. It is important that people know that if that is not happening, they have a right to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service.

Earlier this year, the FCA published a report setting out areas for improvement in how financial services firms support customers in vulnerable circumstances, including those with learning disabilities in particular. The FCA highlighted in the report that most firms could not evidence how they had embedded the needs of customers in vulnerable circumstances into their product design, which is something we are determined to see change. As I have mentioned, in developing our strategy we have been looking at the role of inclusive design in developing financial inclusion. There has been really positive work to improve the way that financial services work for disabled people, so it is critical that we build on that.

I want to highlight briefly the work of Project Nemo, which was founded in 2024 to address digital accessibility and the under-representation of disabled people in financial services. Project Nemo’s research demonstrates that inclusive features can support those with learning disabilities to manage their money with greater independence and develop products that are more accessible for all. We are determined to build on the good work that has gone on previously to deal with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North raises.

I want to address digital inclusion and the points that my hon. Friend raised in that regard. We recognise that digital exclusion can be a significant barrier in how consumers are able to access and use financial services products. That is why digital inclusion is an area of focus in the financial inclusion strategy. It has been specifically considered by its own sub-committee, alongside issues around access to banking services. The strategy, which hon. Members will be able to see in due course, will examine what more industry and Government can do to help address the problems and ensure that everyone can engage with financial services and manage their money in what we all know is an increasingly digital society.

The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is the lead Department for digital inclusion. Earlier this year, it published a digital inclusion action plan that focuses on digital barriers beyond financial services, including digital skills and confidence—issues raised today—and widening access to devices and connectivity, providing support through local communities.

I have addressed the matter of financial education, but I also want to touch briefly on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate about the insurance market. I can confirm to her that insurance is in the scope of the financial inclusion strategy. As she knows, there is other work going on, including via the motor insurance taskforce, which is looking at the issues she raised—specifically, the cost of motor insurance to all our constituents.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

PwC analysis has shown that one in three adults in the UK struggle to access mainstream credit, largely due to poor or just thin credit files. That is causing a huge financial inclusion problem, especially for young people trying to get a mortgage. Will the Minister meet me to discuss ways we can improve that situation in collaboration with industry, for example through the reporting of rent payments to credit reference agencies?

[Lucy Rigby]

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues. I said at the outset that the financial inclusion strategy is considering cross-cutting themes. The issue of credit rating agencies has come across my desk outside the scope of the strategy, in relation to economic abuse. As he knows, there are serious issues with people—women in particular—having their credit rating affected as one impact of economic abuse. That is something that I am extremely interested in and that we are looking at. Indeed, the committee is looking at it as part of the financial inclusion strategy.

I will close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North for his continued championing of financial inclusion. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for raising their points today. Some raise financial inclusion with me very regularly via correspondence or via conversations in the voting Lobby and elsewhere. I very much appreciate their doing that, and I encourage them to continue to do so as we seek to address these serious issues, which affect not just our constituents’ ability to engage with financial services, but their ability to participate in societal life as a whole. I want to thank again—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Draft Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The draft regulations before the Committee support the Government in their operation of overseas recognition regimes. Specifically, they provide His Majesty’s Treasury with the powers needed to ensure that designations of individual jurisdictions are assessed and implemented in a manner that is compatible with our existing regulatory regime.

As hon. Members know, the UK’s historical strength in global financial markets is built on our international openness and reach. Our ability to provide unilateral recognition where the regulatory framework in an overseas jurisdiction provides similar outcomes to the UK’s is an important tool to support cross-border financial services. Recognition can provide a range of regulatory benefits, which include: enabling overseas firms to provide services directly into the UK; aligning requirements on UK-authorised firms, whether they are engaging with UK or overseas markets or counterparties; and providing regulatory relief by removing duplicative requirements on cross-border business.

This recognition framework is common to other jurisdictions. For example, the EU maintains equivalence regimes, the United States makes comparability determinations in respect of other jurisdictions, and Australia operates a system that allows it to judge whether foreign regulatory regimes are sufficiently equivalent. The regulations promote consistency in regulatory standards, provide the foundation for long-term regulatory co-operation between jurisdictions, and support financial stability.

The regulations were first published in draft form to coincide with the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech in July, alongside a guidance document that outlines the principles and processes governing ORRs and a memorandum of understanding agreed between HM Treasury and the financial services regulators. As the documents make clear, ORRs are the Government’s new harmonised approach through which the UK will recognise overseas jurisdictions’ financial services regulation and supervision.

The regulations support the Government in their operation of recognition regimes, specifically in relation to the designation of individual jurisdictions. As I said, the regulations will ensure that designations are assessed and implemented in a way that is compatible with our existing regulatory regime, and they will therefore support financial stability, market integrity, consumer protection and competition.

The regulations have three main functions: first, in relation to information and advice, the decision to designate an overseas jurisdiction is taken by HM Treasury Ministers on the basis of an assessment undertaken by officials, with technical advice from our expert regulators and made by statutory instrument laid before Parliament. The powers in the regulations update HM Treasury’s existing powers to request information and advice from the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority, as part of the process of assessing and then designating an overseas jurisdiction. As I said, an MOU is established between HM Treasury and our financial services regulators in accordance with the regulations.

Secondly, the regulations give the Treasury the power to impose conditions on the application of an ORR designation. The conditions are specific changes to the effect of a designation—for example, limiting the effect to a given size of firm—and ensuring that we can support cross-border financial services while assessing any areas of risk. This change will help to maintain consistency with the regulatory and supervisory standards that we expect in our markets.

Thirdly, the regulations make amendments to two existing ORRs. The Government previously established two ORRs covering insurance and short selling respectively, as part of the process of repealing assimilated EU law under the powers afforded by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. No new designations have been made under either of those two ORRs, meaning that there has been no need yet to use the powers in the regulations. The amendments to the regimes simply make the definition of an overseas jurisdiction consistent across all ORRs, including those already established, ensuring that there is a single approach across financial services regulation that can be easily understood, including by our international partners.

The regulations are clearly defined and limited in scope. Their sole purpose is to provide the Treasury with the powers needed to ensure that the designations of individual jurisdictions are assessed and implemented in a manner compatible with our existing regulatory regime. They will ensure we can operate ORRs effectively and thereby support the global competitiveness of the UK’s financial sector, facilitate cross-border financial services, and provide a consistent approach across financial services legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What steps she is taking to reform the financial services sector.

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

Our financial services growth and competitiveness strategy sets out the Government’s 10-year plan for the sector, making clear our ambition that, by 2035, the UK will be the global location of choice for financial services firms to invest, grow and sell their services throughout the UK and to the world. To support this ambition, the Government announced the Leeds reforms, which are the most wide-ranging package of reforms to financial services regulation in a decade. The reforms will turbocharge growth, put more money in the pockets of working people and create more good, skilled jobs right across the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome you to your new role.

[Oliver Ryan]

I also welcome my hon. Friend to her new role. Small businesses in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are the lifeblood of our community, providing jobs and livelihoods to our people. Growing manufacturers and exporters such as the brilliant Barnes Aerospace in Burnley are doing an excellent job at taking Britain across the world. Will the Economic Secretary set out what the Government are doing to support small and medium-sized business, particularly our manufacturers, with access to finance?

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and it is very good to hear him championing businesses in his constituency. The Government published the small business strategy in July, which sets out how we will make the UK the best place to start and grow a business and puts SMEs at the heart of our growth mission. That includes tackling the barriers that SMEs face when accessing finance. That is why the Government are committed to increasing the total financial capacity of the British Business Bank to £25.6 billion and introducing a new business growth service, which will make it easier and quicker for businesses across the UK to get the help, support and advice that they need to grow and thrive.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the new Economic Secretary to her role. Over the summer I looked at issues around liquidity in the London Stock Exchange and the deterioration that has happened. Given that only 15% of share trades attract stamp duty and much more trading is conducted in a dark environment, will the new Economic Secretary meet with me to hear my concerns and the concerns of those in the City so that we can move forward in a positive direction?

[Lucy Rigby]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member’s work in this area, and I would be more than happy to meet with him to discuss those concerns.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Economic Secretary.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The markets will be closed soon. I call the Minister.

[Lucy Rigby]

I am grateful for the lecture, but I note that it was the Conservatives who introduced the bank levy. The Government are committed to responsibly promoting the growth and competitiveness of the sector, and of course we keep the bank tax regime under review.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call Lucy Rigby to make her maiden speech.

[Lucy Rigby (Northampton North) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) on his fantastic maiden speech and to all hon. Members who have made such brilliant maiden speeches in this afternoon’s debate. It is a privilege to follow them and to make my own maiden speech in the context of such an important Bill.

Northampton has sent Members to Parliament since 1283, and it is the honour of my life to be among them as the Member of Parliament for Northampton North. One of those former Members, I am proud to say, was the trailblazing Margaret Bondfield—the first woman to serve in Cabinet in this country, the first to be appointed to the Privy Council and the first to chair the TUC. I hope, in the course of my time here, that we might find ways to see Margaret’s name given greater recognition and prominence, as I believe is due. Some 51 years after Margaret Bondfield’s arrival in this House, the good people of my constituency elected Maureen Colquhoun—a trailblazer herself in relation to many issues, including being the country’s first openly gay MP.

I want to pay particular tribute to my two immediate predecessors: Sir Michael Ellis and Sally Keeble. Sir Michael stepped down at the last election, having served Northampton North for 14 years and served the country as a Minister in multiple roles. He is also remembered locally for performing lifesaving CPR on a constituent having a coronary episode—I am more than aware that that sets me a very high bar for looking after my constituents. Like Sir Michael, Labour’s Sally Keeble served Northampton North for well over a decade and served her country in government too. Sally has many achievements—notable among them was the taking through of one of the last pieces of legislation under the previous Labour Government to protect developing countries from vulture funds. Sally remains a dedicated and committed public servant. I do not mind admitting that I spoke to plenty of residents during the election campaign who told me that while they really appreciated my doorstep pitch for their support, they would be voting for Sally Keeble.

I am aware of the examples of good service in this place that have been set for me, and I hope to live up to them, so I want my constituents to know that serving our community in Northampton will be my first and highest priority for as long as I remain in this place. This place could, in fact, be in my constituency, because Northampton has been the seat of Parliament on more than 30 occasions. King John even moved the Treasury to Northampton in 1205, when he fell out with a few people in London over something akin to the disastrous mini-Budget—an option that I suspect those supportive of the Treasury’s current location will be glad to know was not suggested, as far as we know, to the former right hon. Member for South West Norfolk.

We are a town of deep pride in both our present and our past. We are the largest town in England. We have buildings of neo-gothic splendour; strong communities; beautiful green spaces such as Eastfield Park, Abington Park and the Racecourse; and not one but two shoe armies: Premiership champions Northampton Saints, and the mighty Cobblers. Our boot and shoemaking industry has provided many Members of this House with their footwear over the years, including, I am proud to say, the former Prime Minister and Member for Sedgefield, who wore the same lucky pair of Church’s brogues at every Prime Minister’s questions for 10 years, which just goes to show where a good pair of Northampton shoes can get you.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We have now been in the Chamber for one hour and 40 minutes, but we have not had a single apology from any Opposition Members. They should have come to the Chamber today and apologised; they have not done so. The country kicked them out of office three and a half weeks ago, and we can tell why.

[Lucy Rigby (Northampton North) (Lab)]

May I point out to certain Opposition Members who might question the difficult decision that the Chancellor has taken to restrict the winter fuel payment to those on pension credit that this approach has been put forward by the Conservatives and the Lib Dems in recent manifestos? The Scottish Government’s own anti-poverty advisory body has stated that, as it stands,

“this particular instrument is extraordinarily poorly targeted as regards…addressing poverty.”

Does the Chancellor agree that although it is difficult, this decision is a sensible step towards fixing the huge Tory black hole in our public finances?

[Rachel Reeves]

None of the decisions that we have made today was easy. None of them was a decision that I wanted to have to make, but leaving unaddressed a £22 billion in-year hole in our public finances was not an option. We saw what happened when a previous Prime Minister and Chancellor played fast and loose with the public finances. I will not do that, which is why today I have been honest with this House about the scale of the inheritance that we now have to deal with and the necessary decisions, including on winter fuel payment, that I have had to take today.