Reforms to Money Market Fund Regulations

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Written Statements

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

Money market funds play an important role in the financial system. MMFs are widely used for cash management and provide an alternative or complement to bank deposits for a broad range of investors, including asset managers, insurers, pension funds, large corporates and local authorities. However, recent periods of market stress have highlighted the need to strengthen the resilience of these funds.

The Government, together with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England, have worked actively with international partners, including the European Commission and at the Financial Stability Board, to enhance MMF resilience so these funds are better able to withstand market disruption. As part of this, the Government and FCA committed to reforming the UK money market fund regulation regime, to ensure the UK’s regulatory framework appropriately supports the resilience of these markets while maintaining our international competitiveness. These reforms mark an important step forward in enhancing the resilience of the wider non-bank financial sector.

In 2023, HM Treasury and FCA consulted on replacing and reforming MMFR. The Government will now lay legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows to establish the new regulatory framework, under which most requirements for UK MMFs will be set out in FCA rules and guidance. This will include guidance setting out expectations that UK MMFs hold higher levels of liquidity. This approach reflects internationally developed proposals that the UK helped to shape alongside other jurisdictions. The Government and the FCA also welcomed feedback from across the sector to help develop a proportionate set of proposals that will enhance the resilience of money market funds. The UK’s new regime is expected to be in place by Q4 2026, subject to parliamentary approval, and the FCA will issue a statement shortly with further details on its plans.

The Government recognise the cross-border nature of this sector, and the important role that EU-domiciled MMFs play in the UK market. In March, at the Joint EU-UK Financial Regulatory Forum, the UK and EU recognised the value of constructive engagement on the practices that will enhance the resilience of our respective MMF sectors. The Government therefore welcome the report published by the European Commission on 11 May that sets out its expectations for these funds.

The Government can confirm their intention to extend the temporary marketing permissions regime, with a view to establishing a longer-term solution on market access, in line with the UK’s framework and process for recognition of overseas firms and funds.

[HCWS1562]

Access to Banking Services Review

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Written Statements

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

The way people access banking services has changed significantly in recent years. Access to these services is provided through a range of channels, including different in-person models as well as digital channels, which many customers benefit from. Many find that the ease and convenience of remote banking and digital innovations allow them to manage their finances more easily. However, some still need or prefer access to in-person banking services, including those who are vulnerable, less digitally confident, or who rely on face-to-face support to manage their finances.

It is for this reason that the Government committed in our manifesto to working with the financial services industry on the roll out of 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. Over 275 hubs have been announced so far, and more than 230 are already open.

However, the Government recognise that the location of banking hubs is based upon a legislative framework which protects access to cash, as opposed to access to banking services. Specifically, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 provides a framework to safeguard cash withdrawal and deposit facilities, and the Financial Conduct Authority has responsibility and powers to ensure the reasonable provision of such services. There are currently no equivalent statutory protections specifically for access to in-person banking services more broadly.

While the Government recognise it is neither possible nor reflective of customer behaviour to reverse the long-term trend towards digital banking, the Government are committed to ensuring that customers, including those who are vulnerable or less digitally able, retain sufficient access to essential banking services in line with their needs. HM Treasury has therefore commissioned an independent review into access to banking services to assess the impact of changes in the provision of in-person banking services across the United Kingdom. The review will consider the scale and nature of any detriment to consumers arising from a lack of access to banking services, including impacts on vulnerable groups. The review will be chaired by Richard Lloyd OBE, chair of IPSA and former interim chair of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).

The review will also seek to examine which groups of customers need or require access to in-person banking services.

It will seek input from market participants and consumer representatives, and Government and regulators may also be consulted. Evidence collected by the review will inform future decisions on whether further action is needed. The review will conclude in October 2026 and the chair will provide a report and recommendations to the Government.

In addition to this, the Financial Services and Markets Bill will include provisions to enable the Government to take further action in respect of this issue, including implementation of any recommendations arising from the access to banking services review, should the evidence demonstrate that this is necessary. This will ensure that Ministers have the ability to act in a timely and proportionate way in future, following the conclusion of the review.

The Government will consider the review’s findings carefully and will update the House in due course.

Further details about the review, including the terms of reference, can be found on gov.uk at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-access-to-banking-services-review

[HCWS1565]

Treasury

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Written Corrections

[Sarah Olney]

More than 1.3 million people use lifetime ISAs to save for their first home. The property cap of £450,000 has been frozen since 2017, despite rising house prices, but those buying their first home over that threshold face a 25% penalty. First-time buyers across London are disproportionately affected. Data from February this year showed that the average price paid by a first-time buyer in London was £463,000. Can the Chancellor tell us how she is ensuring that first-time buyers in London are not unfairly disadvantaged by using this saving scheme?

[Lucy Rigby]

The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many people as possible, and we recognise that the LISA is not working for everyone. That is exactly why we have launched a short consultation on the implementation of a new ISA product that will support more first-time buyers.

[Official Report, 28 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 736.]

Written correction submitted by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby):

[Lucy Rigby]

The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many people as possible, and we recognise that the LISA is not working for everyone. That is exactly why we will launch a short consultation in early 2026 on the implementation of a new ISA product that will support more first-time buyers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to support businesses to trade globally.

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

This Government are backing our brilliant British businesses to trade globally, including through our new trade strategy that expands UK Export Finance’s capacity to £80 billion. This Government have secured new trade deals with India, South Korea, the EU and the US to back British businesses globally, delivering improved access to key markets and protecting British jobs.

[Jacob Collier]

I recently joined Cosy Direct for its second King’s Award presentation, this time for international trade. Cosy Direct is an award-winning business in early years education resources, exporting globally and continuing to grow. The Chancellor saw its success, and its goats, at first hand when she visited with me last year. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Pete, Amanda and all the team, and will she say what work she is doing to allow such businesses to expand and export globally?

[Lucy Rigby]

I warmly congratulate Pete, Amanda and the wider team—and the goats—on their success. In inviting me to do so, my hon. Friend shows that he is indeed a true champion for the businesses in his constituency. The support that this Government are giving to businesses will enable more of our fantastic British companies to export globally and to emulate Cosy Direct’s success.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Integrated industrial clusters such as Saltend in my constituency provide fundamental chemicals and other inputs into defence and wider industries right across the country. Yet higher energy costs and global events mean that they are under unprecedented pressure. Will the Minister look at establishing an industrial support fund, so that rather than having an ad hoc approach, such as that seen when supporting Grangemouth, we have something strategic to ensure that we do not lose the industrial base upon which so much of this country depends?

[Lucy Rigby]

I believe the right hon. Member mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme. That is being expanded. He will also be aware of the British industry supercharger package, which provides additional price relief from April 2026 as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury will know that our financial services industry is a shining example of our international economic might. However, overinterpretation of rules and regulations has led to banks being nervous of taking risks, and that has slowed growth in the City and holds up international trade. For example, overinterpretation of anti-money laundering rules means that foreign inward remittances can take up to two weeks to clear into a UK bank account, while poor classification of risk-rated assets potentially starves businesses of growth debt capital. Will the Economic Secretary please assure the House that this ever-unnecessary tightening of the rules will be addressed in the financial services Bill, due to be announced in the King’s Speech?

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to pre-empt anything that may or may not be announced in the King’s Speech. What I will tell him, though, as he already knows, is that this Government are backing our financial services sector to the hilt to ensure that it continues to be the world-leading success that it is.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

4. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the effectiveness of the defence industrial strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

T5. More than 1.3 million people use lifetime ISAs to save for their first home. The property cap of £450,000 has been frozen since 2017, despite rising house prices, but those buying their first home over that threshold face a 25% penalty. First-time buyers across London are disproportionately affected. Data from February this year showed that the average price paid by a first-time buyer in London was £463,000. Can the Chancellor tell us how she is ensuring that first-time buyers in London are not unfairly disadvantaged by using this saving scheme?

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

The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many people as possible, and we recognise that the LISA is not working for everyone. That is exactly why we have launched a short consultation on the implementation of a new ISA product that will support more first-time buyers. That new product will include the Government bonus being paid at the point the individual makes a withdrawal for a home purchase, therefore removing the need for a withdrawal charge.

[Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)]

T8. The Chancellor will have seen the news this morning that BP’s profits have more than doubled, undoubtedly driven by the conflict in the middle east. Does she agree that this shows the value of having a windfall tax at this point in time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Leicester South has a home ownership rate of just over 40%—nearly 23 points below the national average—in a city where the average house costs 8.5 times average local earnings. My young constituents work very hard and save responsibly to get on to the housing ladder, yet the tax system offers them absolutely nothing, while incorporated landlords deduct full mortgage interest through a company structure. Canada and Nordic countries are offering targeted tax relief for first-time buyers. Has the Chancellor considered introducing a similar relief here to ensure that young people are supported by the tax system, not left behind?

[Lucy Rigby]

This Labour Government are committed to enabling more people to realise the dream of home ownership. Mortgages have become more affordable under this Government, thanks to increased economic stability and six interest rate cuts.

Bills Presented

Newhaven West Beach (Public Access)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

James MacCleary presented a Bill to provide for a right of public access on foot to Newhaven West Beach; to impose duties on the harbour authority in respect of that right, including requirements to open and maintain specified access routes; to provide for exemptions from those duties for reasons of safety or in connection with harbour operations; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 436).

Defence Bonds (Proposals)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

James MacCleary presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the issuing of defence bonds, including for purchase by members of the public; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 437).

Car Insurance Industry: Fraud

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate and highlighting the impact that fraud can have and the devious tactics that fraudsters use. She also spoke about the interplay between those issues and the legal profession. I will address the people who run such platforms later on. I also want to thank other Members who contributed to this thoughtful and important debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), as well as the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord).

Car insurance is not a luxury; it is a legal requirement. For many businesses and families, it is essential to daily life, whether taking children to school, getting to work or caring for relatives. As has been said, fraud undermines confidence in the motor insurance market. It causes direct harm to consumers and drives up costs across the system. Those costs are ultimately paid by people who do the right thing by driving with insurance, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell pointed out that some drivers—far too many, in fact—do not get insurance, but drive regardless, which is a criminal offence. I regret to say that between 2019 and 2024, the cost of claims involving uninsured drivers increased by a huge 37%. As my hon. Friend said, that increases premiums for everyone else. The Government are considering how, in the light of its seriousness, the penalties should be strengthened for that offence. I hope that he can take from what I have just said that the Government take fraud extremely seriously.

Fraud is the largest crime type in the UK. It harms individuals and businesses, as well as costing our economy billions of pounds each year. It is increasingly driven by organised crime and enabled by technology, as hon. Members have highlighted. That is why fraud is a national security priority for this Government, and we will do what we must to protect the public. In honouring our manifesto commitment, the Government published the new and expanded fraud strategy in March, as we have heard. The central focus of the strategy is disruption: denying criminals the ability to commit fraud in the first place by targeting the tools and methods they use to reach victims. That means acting across the system of Government, law enforcement, regulators, financial institutions, technology companies and telecoms providers, because no single organisation can tackle fraud alone.

As part of the strategy, we are investing £31 million in a new online crime centre that will bring together the Government, law enforcement, GCHQ and industry to identify and address the technological enablers of fraud and deliver high-impact interventions. In practice, that means better data and real-time analysis so that we can identify patterns earlier and take faster action. That could mean taking down fraudulent websites, disrupting malicious advertising networks or supporting the freezing of accounts linked to fraud. Alongside that, we have launched a call for evidence on economic crime information sharing. We want to remove barriers that can prevent firms and agencies from acting on intelligence earlier so that suspected scam activity can be identified and stopped before more people are harmed.

Let me turn to paid ad spoofing and fraudulent advertising, which was raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The Government recognise that paid-for advertising is being exploited by criminals to reach potential victims at scale. Spoofed ads are designed to look like they come from trusted brands, insurers, brokers, comparison sites and even public bodies. Those are particularly pernicious examples. As the hon. Member noted, they can be highly convincing. Indeed, to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, they look too good to be true. They can appear at the top of search results and be targeted at people precisely when they are looking for help, as the shadow Economic Secretary explained.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about ghost broking. My statistics might well be worse than the ones that he read out, because my understanding is that the Insurance Fraud Bureau thinks that ghost broking increased by 50% in the last two years. Whatever the exact statistic, there is a serious increase in the crime. My hon. Friend also highlighted a troubling example of identity theft and pointed to the links between ghost broking and follow-on activities. The story that he told was hard to hear.

All these things are not just consumer issues, but significant questions of responsibility and liability in the online ecosystem. If criminals can buy their way into prominence through paid advertising, we must ensure that the systems that place and profit from those adverts do not turn a blind eye. That is exactly why the Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on the largest social media platforms to tackle fraudulent adverts on their services. Ofcom is due to consult on those measures later this year. Once implemented, Ofcom will have the power to take robust enforcement action when it finds non-compliance, including fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.

The Government have also launched a new partnership between the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and industry: the online advertising taskforce. The purpose is to strengthen and maximise the adoption of transparency standards across the wider programmatic ecosystem so that bad actors can be identified, disrupted and, when appropriate, prosecuted. That work will report back in early 2027, and the Government have been clear that we will take legislative action within this Parliament if there are not sufficient improvements.

The hon. Member for North Shropshire and the shadow EST referred to claims management companies and legal professionals who associate themselves with such companies, and the links between them and car insurance fraud. The Ministry of Justice leads on elements of that agenda but, in some areas, the Financial Conduct Authority has responsibility. I hope the hon. Member will be reassured by the fact that there is ongoing dialogue on the issue between His Majesty’s Treasury and the MOJ to determine what might be done in this area. I hope she will agree that that addresses some of her important points.

I want to address specifically the link between online fraud and car insurance. Insurance fraud is a serious issue for all the reasons that I have noted, and it has been well covered in this debate. However, it has an interaction with online criminality. The spoofed ads that are used to harvest personal data, misdirect consumers to fake brokers and facilitate scams ultimately feed wider fraud, particularly serious forms of money laundering. The Government are working closely with the industry, regulators and consumer groups to close the gaps that criminals exploit. I should add that the FCA is alive to the issue of ghost broking and is looking into it specifically.

In October 2024, the Home Office launched the insurance fraud charter with key insurance firms to reduce insurance fraud. The charter supports stronger collaboration and shared action to prevent, detect and disrupt fraud, because the more effectively we tackle fraud at source, the more we protect consumers and the integrity of the market.

More broadly, the Government’s motor insurance taskforce, which published its final report in 2025, included actions for regulators, industry and the Government to tackle fraud, given the unfortunate role that fraudulent activity plays in increasing claim costs and, in turn, premiums for all consumers.

It is also important to be clear about the wider framework that supports this work. Financial institutions are required to maintain robust systems and controls to detect and prevent financial crime under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Banks must report certain suspicious activity to the National Crime Agency under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and they may also freeze and block accounts if suspicious activity is detected. We have also recently introduced new rules allowing banks to delay and investigate suspicious payments for up to 72 hours, which supports the interception of suspicious payments, giving firms more time to prevent funds from reaching fraudsters in complex cases and helping to break the spell that fraudsters have over victims. As we have set out in the fraud strategy, we are reinforcing the system-wide response through the Online Crime Centre and improved information sharing so that suspected scam accounts can be spotted sooner and action taken more quickly.

I do not pretend that tackling fraud is simple. Fraudsters adapt quickly, and technology, including some of the technology that we have been talking about today, moves very fast, but the direction of travel is very clear. We are shifting from a reactive model, picking up the pieces after harm occurs, to a disruption model that targets the infrastructure that criminals rely on, including the online advertising routes they use to reach victims.

Through our fraud strategy, the Online Crime Centre, strong action on fraudulent advertising via the Online Safety Act, and further work through the online advertising taskforce, backed by a clear commitment to legislate if necessary, we are taking decisive action to protect the public and disrupt the criminals behind these crimes.

I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire again for raising these important issues. I reiterate that the Government recognise the importance of car insurance to people’s lives and livelihoods, and we are determined to tackle the fraud that drives up costs for honest motorists.

Draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 Draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That this Committee has considered the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[Lucy Rigby]

Both statutory instruments are made under FSMA, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. Together, the two instruments will help to deliver a more agile and responsive capital framework for UK banks and investment firms.

Following the EU exit, the UK retained a body of financial services legislation known as assimilated law, which includes the capital requirements regulation, which sets the detailed and often technical capital rules. As hon. Members know, the UK follows the FSMA model of regulation, which involves regulatory standards being set by expert independent regulators that work within a policy framework set by Government and Parliament.

The Government are now applying the FSMA model to the CRR by revoking the CRR, so that the Prudential Regulation Authority can replace requirements in legislation with requirements in PRA rules, resulting in a more user-friendly, single-source book of prudential rules for firms. Where important elements of the CRR need to stay in legislation to provide the policy framework within which the PRA must operate, those elements are restated, using powers provided under FSMA 2023.

The first SI that I will discuss is the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which simply restate important definitions from the CRR that need to stay on the statute book. For example, the definition of what constitutes an investment firm is being restated in legislation, rather than being defined by the PRA rule book. That is necessary for the continuity of existing legislation and to ensure that the Government and Parliament remain in control of which regulatory activities should be regulated. The instrument does not introduce new regulatory requirements, and it does not make any substantive change to the scope or effect of the definitions being restated. Its purpose is simply to maintain legal continuity and to ensure that the prudential framework continues to operate as intended as we complete the move to the FSMA model.

The second SI that I will discuss is the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The UK remains committed to the full and consistent adoption of the Basel reforms, and the PRA intends to implement most of the new Basel 3.1 rules from 1 January 2027. That will help to ensure that the banking system is well capitalised, while giving domestic-focused firms the regulatory certainty that they need to plan for the future and to invest in the real economy, including small businesses and infrastructure projects.

We recognise, however, that the timing of implementation in other major jurisdictions remains unclear, in particular for certain market risk requirements affecting banks that use internal models. That is particularly relevant for the internationally active firms with cross-border trading activity. Implementing those specific requirements in the UK ahead of clarity elsewhere risks unnecessary operational complexity for internationally active firms and potentially misaligned implementation, which is exactly why the Government, in conjunction with the PRA, decided to build in flexibility to the UK’s approach.

For the new internal model market-risk requirements, the element of Basel 3.1 that will most affect the ability of UK banks to compete in international markets, implementation will be delayed until 1 January 2028. The draft instrument gives effect to that approach by disapplying the updated internal market risk rules during the transitional period from 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027 and, during that period, firms will continue to apply the existing requirements. This limited delay will allow the UK to flex the new internal model requirements for market risk, should that prove necessary, to ensure that the UK remains competitive with other major jurisdictions. The draft regulations also provide the Treasury with the ability to extend the transitional period by making further regulations. Any such extension would be time limited, subject to parliamentary approval and used only if necessary to respond to material international developments.

In summary, the draft regulations bring near to completion the work to deliver a more agile and responsive prudential regime for banks and investment firms, and I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I am very grateful to the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their input on the draft regulations. Their questions are very apt and go straight to the nub of this issue.

What is happening in other jurisdictions is really important, and that is why we are seeking to include a degree of flexibility in the draft regulations. As I said in my opening remarks, we are postponing a certain element until 1 January 2028 for internationally active banks, and I set out why doing so is really important. However, there is potential for further flexibility, exactly as I said, subject to what goes on in other jurisdictions.

As I am sure the shadow EST knows, the US recently put out some revised proposals in March. Without getting into all the nitty-gritty detail, the upshot is that the revised US proposals remain broadly aligned with international standards and the UK’s rules. Briefly, I also want to touch on the EU, because that is also very important. Again, there is broad alignment, although there has been some commentary in the press that the EU banking union is thinking about going out to an even longer date—they were talking about 2030. I think I am right in saying that we are yet to have that fully confirmed. If anything, that comes back to the importance of building in flexibility. We, particularly the PRA, need to have a sufficient degree of agility and nimbleness built into what we can do, which is the approach that we are taking. Should international circumstances change, we and the PRA need to remain alert to those positions.

For all the reasons I have set out, which I will not repeat, the draft regulations are designed to ensure that, for our internationally active banks, we do not create an undue, unnecessary and problematic degree of inconsistency between all those very important jurisdictions. As I made clear, the draft regulations allow the Treasury the power to extend the transitional period that we are putting in place, if necessary, which would then be subject to the negative procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT CREDIT INSTITUTIONS AND INVESTMENT FIRMS (MISCELLANEOUS DEFINITIONS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Lucy Rigby.)

Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and for further airing these issues. As he mentioned, there has been a long history of parliamentary interest in these issues, over at least 14 years. That is for good reason, for not only are we deeply committed to justice and do we abhor injustice in this country, but SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy. The events of the IHRP scandal were completely wrong and abhorrent.

From a personal point of view, I cannot deny how hard it is to hear and read about horrific personal circumstances, not least those of the Glanville family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan); the Evans family, referred to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone); and the Lilley family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to, in some instances there are hideous personal tragedies, as no doubt may have been experienced by some of the people who are sat behind him in the Public Gallery today.

To that end, I thank and acknowledge my hon. Friends the Members for Poole, for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—the latter knows I struggle sometimes to pronounce the name of his constituency; I hope he thinks I had a decent go—and the spokespeople from other parties for their contributions to the debate. They have shared experiences of those they represent and broader views, and in doing so, they have been clear about the deep sense of injustice and harm felt by many businesses that were affected by these issues—I know of the same in my own postbag.

Not least because of the correspondence I have had and what we have heard today, I recognise that some businesses remain deeply dissatisfied with the operation of the original redress scheme and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. Although there have been a number of reviews and pieces of litigation, as I will come to later, the main redress scheme for IRHP resulted in over £2 billion paid in total to thousands of affected businesses.

It was undeniably unsatisfactory that the overall response to these issues has been piecemeal and complex, and the process was very often slow and frustrating to deal with. However, I am told that the IRHP redress scheme was conceived as a means of providing redress within the legal and regulatory constraints of the time. That time was more than 10 years ago, and some instances of the subject matter that we are discussing today go back around 25 years.

Clearly, I was not part of the Treasury in 2012, nor were Labour in government—the party of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), were in government for the last 14 years—so I want to set out the current Government’s understanding of the framework within which decisions about the redress scheme were taken at the time. The constraints, in so far as they concern regulatory oversight, reflect the constitutional settlement that underpins the UK’s regulatory system, with which I know hon. Members are familiar.

I would imagine that we would all wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green that regulators should at all times act with integrity and independence. Indeed, partly with that point in mind, I say that the Treasury does not have the power to direct the FCA to intervene in individual cases or to investigate matters that fell outside the regulatory perimeter that applied at the time—I am not sure that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is asking the Treasury to do at this point in any event.

The Treasury also does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own. I am sure hon. Members are aware that the independence of the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service is fundamental to our constitutional settlement. The separation between the Treasury and the wider regulatory authorities is not a technicality; it is, in theory, a safeguard for businesses and for consumers.

I acknowledge the argument that the Government should act independently of the regulator and the regulatory system and look again at this issue with fresh eyes using their own statutory powers. Given the many reviews of these issues, the independent and broad-based redress schemes over more than a decade, the successful prosecutions, convictions, judicial reviews, and other investigations, the question that the current Government must ask is whether steps to reopen these issues now will lead to better or different outcomes, and, importantly, more redress for those affected.

There are questions as to whether this Government would have made the same decisions if confronted with the same problems as the previous one—and if our decisions would have been different or indeed more or less effective. Without prejudice to the gaze of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am sure that most of us would like to think not only that might we have dealt with the situation rather better, but that in a best-case scenario regulation and supervision would have been designed such that none of these issues would have arisen in the first place. That goes right to the root of why we are all here today, and indeed critical regulatory changes were made following this scandal. However, this Government inherited a set of decisions, conclusions, judicial findings, judgments and levels of compensation that were delivered some time ago.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford, a consistent champion of his constituents whose specific points I will come to shortly, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who articulated Catherine and Nigel’s heartbreaking story very well, have spoken about hidden credit lines or contingent obligations. Those are clearly very serious allegations, and it is right that they are treated seriously. For the reasons I have set out, where issues relate to the conduct of regulatory firms, they are for the FCA to consider using its statutory powers, evidence base and judgment—with that judgment being independent, again for the reasons that I have set out.

In the light of the independence that we have been discussing, I should say that the FCA firmly refutes the claims made in the BankConfidential report—which I have here—about the nature and impact of the credit lines that we have been discussing. It also refutes the allegations of collusion and regulatory failure which have been referred to today.

With reference to the independence of the courts, in a series of cases, the courts have made findings in relation to disclosure, and Jonathan Swift KC referenced those findings as settled legal context, concluding that the FCA acted lawfully in defining the scope of the IRHP redress scheme. It is true that past regulatory reviews were conducted within the scope of the powers available to the regulator at that time and within the regulatory perimeter that Parliament had set. It is of critical importance that the wider regulatory framework has now changed.

However, before I come to that, I want to address the previous redress scheme in more detail. I recognise that many of those represented here remain deeply dissatisfied with how that scheme operated and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. I do not intend to in any sense minimise or underplay any of that frustration, which is clearly very strongly felt. While I understand that the process at the time regarding that redress scheme was slow and sometimes no doubt deeply frustrating, it was established with the intention of delivering redress within the legal and regulatory constraints that applied at that time. One such constraint related to tailored business loans. Most business lending fell outside the scope of the FCA and therefore beyond its powers to compel redress. We cannot extend regulation retrospectively. Indeed, even outwith these current issues, reopening past decisions would create significant legal uncertainty and risk that could affect the availability and cost of finance for SMEs today.

Although I appreciate it is known by those here, I should note that subsequent reviews, and ultimately the courts, considered whether the regulator had acted lawfully in setting the scope and perimeter of that scheme, and concluded that it did. I mention that because it is an important consideration in any assertion that it is for the current Government to seek to reopen these issues.

I referred to a different regulatory environment from that existing now. I will briefly explain why our regulatory landscape is now better. Since 2019, the vast majority of SMEs, around 99%, have been able to bring complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service. That was a direct response to the gaps exposed by earlier scandals, including those we have talked about today. The ombudsman now provides a far wider safety net for small and medium-sized businesses than existed during the period under discussion.

In addition, the senior managers and certification regime has transformed accountability in financial services. Senior individuals can now be held personally responsible for the way that firms treat SME customers, whether activity is regulated or unregulated. That cultural shift, which stems from both of those, is profound. It did not exist during the years that Members have understandably focused on today.

Today’s debate, like other parliamentary activity on the same topic over a long period, some of which I have reviewed for this debate, has highlighted the serious and clear injustices that some businesses suffered and the impact that had. The current Government obviously cannot undo the harm that has already occurred, more is the pity, but nor can we, or should we, override independent decisions taken by the courts within the legal framework that applied at the time.

I want to address this directly, hard as it may be to hear. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington wishes me to commit today to opening a full judge-led public inquiry into these issues. I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of the matters we have discussed today, but the Government do not believe that a full public inquiry would be the right course to take. I say that with reference both to the long history of reviews, prosecutions, redress schemes and judicial reviews, which would all require unpicking to some degree, and importantly, to the changes to the regulatory landscape that were made subsequently, as a result of the gaps that this scandal exposed.

I want to be clear that the Government are instead focused on ensuring that the regulatory landscape is fit for purpose and on supporting SMEs to grow with confidence, improving their access to finance and ensuring that the financial services sector operates to high standards that command trust. We are backing that commitment with real action, with record support for the British Business Bank and reforms that strengthen accountability without undermining growth.

We are committed to robust regulation to international high standards, so that we have a strong financial services sector. Those ought not to be intentions but the bedrock of the financial services system. That is why access to redress for SMEs has been widened so significantly and why accountability at the top of financial firms is now personal and enforceable. It is also why the regulatory perimeter continues to be kept under careful review, deliberately and responsibly.

The hon. Member for Strangford referred to discretionary commission arrangements.

[John McDonnell]

There are only a few seconds left. I have heard the Minister’s arguments. I fully agree on the independence of the FCA from Treasury, but that does not mean that we must accept the FCA as infallible. In other instances where separate organisations have made mistakes, the Government have intervened. I understand that the Minister is not convinced this morning, but will she meet the all-party parliamentary group on investment fraud and fairer financial services, so that we can take her through the report with our experts to convince her that there might be a different way forward from the one she is setting out this morning?

[Lucy Rigby]

My right hon. Friend has pre-empted my offer. To be direct, yes, I will come and meet his APPG to listen further. I hope I have successfully communicated this morning that the Government do believe—

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

Banking Services: Accessibility

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) on securing this debate. I thank him for setting out the concerns of his constituents very well, and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions: they have been powerful and in some cases very heartfelt.

It is fair to say that access to banking continues to attract significant interest from colleagues across the House. The hon. Member is right that that interest is increasing. He referred to his own experience of the trajectory of this issue, and I agree: I am seeing hon. Members raising this issue in the House with increased salience, which I am sure reflects how our constituents feel. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have taken the time to share their experiences and those of their constituents.

Some hon. Members who spoke in this debate have attended my banking hub surgeries, which I hope the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), found valuable. The fact that I hold those surgeries, which Members of Parliament from any party can attend, demonstrates that the issue is being raised more and more by Members across the House.

I recognise that rural and coastal communities such as those in the constituencies of the hon. Member for St Ives and of the hon. and gallant Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) face particular challenges in accessing banking services. I very much appreciate the fact that in many circumstances local geography and transport may make it more difficult for elderly and disabled people, as well as those who are vulnerable or digitally excluded, to reach face-to-face banking when branch provision changes locally.

The hon. Member for St Ives mentioned services in his constituency being provided in an upstairs setting. I will come on to address accessibility issues, but I was sorry to hear that example. On transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) raised concerns about travel times, which I will also address. Many points have been raised, and I will do my level best to address them all.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), rightly referred to the fact that the banking landscape has changed in recent years. Many people have greatly benefited from digital innovations that allow them to manage their finances more easily. For many, those changes have increased accessibility and convenience. Many of us are able to access banking services just from an app on a phone. It has been clear in this debate, however, that although digital services work well for many people, others still want, need or prefer to access banking in person or use cash in their daily lives. That includes some older customers, people who are more vulnerable, or those—as with the family member of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray)—who have been through a significant life event. Being vulnerable at that point, they may just want to speak to another human.

This Government are on the side of each of those categories of people. We recognise that cash remains important for people and businesses right across the country. That is why we have been clear that, alongside digital innovation, it is critical that people have access to the services that they need. Hon. Members know that access to cash is protected in legislation and the FCA has responsibility and powers to ensure that people and businesses can continue to withdraw and deposit cash.

I want to address the serious concerns that have been raised by hon. Members about the impact of bank branch closures on our communities. In particular, the hon. Member for St Ives articulated his concerns about the closure of a Lloyds branch in Penzance. I fully understand his concerns about that situation. The Government understand the importance of those services, and there are other similar instances across the country. Banking services and other services must reflect customer and community interest.

I welcome the fact that some banks have made commitments to maintaining or improving their existing branches, because they recognise just how important they are to their customers. Nationwide Building Society has committed to maintaining 605 branches until at least 2030 and HSBC UK has committed to keeping 327 branches open until at least 2027; we very much welcome those important commitments. I also draw attention to the fact that, according to the Building Societies Association, 35% of the branch network is currently provided by building societies. As a Government, we fully support and value the role that mutuals play in our economy and society.

Branch access is an important feature for a number of customers. Many have used the free current account switching service to change provider. The switching service ensures that all payments and balances are automatically transferred to a new account, but for those firms that are changing their branch network, there are rules and obligations. In those circumstances, it is important that all Members know that decisions to close branches must be taken with regard to their impact on customers and communities. The FCA’s branch closure guidance is very clear that firms must carefully assess the effect of a planned closure on customers’ everyday banking and cash access needs.

Let me underline that point: it is very important, not least because of some of the contributions to today’s debate. Banks are expected to put appropriate alternatives in place. Where they fall short of those expectations, the FCA can and will ask for closures to be paused and I fully support those FCA powers. As a Government, we expect the FCA to use them where they consider it necessary to do so. Crucially, we also believe it is right that no branch can close until any recommended services are put in place.

[Andrew George]

At the end of the day, the issue is that the FCA and Link primarily undertake an assessment of access to cash, and not to the full range of banking services. The Minister says that adequate alternatives are in place. Of course, the banks will no doubt attempt to put some facade in place to satisfy that requirement—as she notes, I am unimpressed by the case in Penzance—but fundamentally, the test is access to cash, and that is insufficient. Surely that measure needs to be significantly widened.

[Lucy Rigby]

I appreciate that there is a difference between access to cash and access to banking services; I will come on to the latter, if the hon. Member will give me a moment.

The Government wholeheartedly recognise the importance of banking services to local communities; that recognition underpins our manifesto commitment to support industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across this country by the end of this Parliament. I think I am right to say that the hon. Member attended the opening of a banking hub in Helston in his constituency.

[Andrew George]

I did.

[Lucy Rigby]

It is always welcome when Members attend such openings. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is no longer in his place, but I was pleased to hear him welcome the upcoming opening of the banking hub in Ilkley. I note what he says about the need for a hub in Keighley as well.

[David Chadwick]

Mine is the biggest constituency in England and Wales, and four or five towns in it sorely need a banking hub: Brecon and Presteigne are two such examples, beyond the hub that has already opened in Ystradgynlais. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for more than the 350 hubs that the Government have already committed to?

[Lucy Rigby]

The hon. Member has tried to trick me into saying the name of his constituency or the towns in it before; as he well knows, I cannot pronounce them anywhere near as well as he can. I was about to answer the exact point that he makes. It is really important to note that the 350 figure is a floor, not a ceiling. Our manifesto commitment sets that floor of 350 hubs. I appreciate that the hon. Member is not asking me to call it right now, but I will: the Government, working with industry, hope to go above that number. That is not least because more than 270 hubs have already been announced. Our commitment is for 350 hubs over the course of this Parliament, and 18 months into the Parliament we are already at 270—hon. Members will see the trajectory. Of the 270 hubs that have been announced, 225 are now open. The remaining hubs that have been committed to are yet to open, but we expect them to in due course. To answer the hon. Member’s question, it is entirely possible that the 350 target will be surpassed, as and when more communities need banking hubs. I would welcome that, it sounds like he would welcome it and I am sure that other Members across the House would too.

Banking hubs provide assisted cash services through post office counters alongside community bankers from individual banks who meet customers face to face in a private room to offer support, as they would in a traditional branch, as has been mentioned. I was very sorry to hear the experiences with community bankers noted by the hon. Member for St Ives; that was not what I understood from colleagues in this place and what I have heard anecdotally outside this place. Indeed, when I visited the banking hub in Warwick in your constituency, Mr Western, I did not see queues of people waiting to see a community banker. Everything was happening in an orderly way, and community bankers could see people in a timely fashion. Nevertheless, I note the experiences that the hon. Member put on the record, and I am more than happy to look specifically at the issues in that banking hub.

[Andrew George]

I want to make sure that the Minister understands that I was simply describing what the community banker working on behalf of Lloyds was providing. I was referring to the Lloyds replacement for the closed branch, not a banking hub.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Member that he will have time to wind up at the end. Perhaps the Minister could start to conclude her remarks.

[Lucy Rigby]

On that cue, I will skip further ahead in my speech. I was going to talk about all the services that are available at banking hubs, which the industry is working hard to increase. Customers can now open accounts, change names and addresses, register complaints or receive help with online and telephone banking. I have met the industry on a number of occasions and I would like to put on record that we are working to try and make sure that the services provided at banking hubs meet the needs of communities. Fraud and scams were mentioned; they are concerns that the Government are thinking about.

Let me cut to the chase and answer many of the questions that have been raised. Despite everything that I have said about the importance of banking hubs and our manifesto commitment to open 350 of them, it would be premature to conclude that all communities are consistently receiving sufficient support for their banking needs. That has been clear from the contributions of hon. Members in this debate. In direct response to one question was raised by the hon. Member for St Ives—a point that was also well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams)—that is why, as might be expected, we are keeping any need to go further, including on access to banking services, under close review.

There is much more I could say about the health of our high streets, digital and financial inclusion, and alternative options to banking services, but in the light of the time and your strong cue, Mr Western, I will wrap up there.

Credit Union Common Bond Reform

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Written Statements

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

Credit unions play a vital role in promoting financial inclusion and providing affordable financial services to communities across the country. However, the current common bond framework in Great Britain presents barriers to sustainable growth, expansion and merger activity in the sector. The Government are committed to addressing these barriers while preserving the community-focused ethos that makes credit unions distinctive.

In November 2025, as part of the financial inclusion strategy¹, the Government confirmed their intention to bring forward a package of growth-focused reforms to the common bond in Great Britain. This followed a call for evidence on the common bond, launched by the Chancellor at Mansion House in 2024, as part of the Government’s commitment to double the size of the mutuals sector.

The Government are today announcing the following changes that seek to remove barriers to the growth of the credit union sector in Great Britain. When parliamentary time allows, the Government will legislate to:

Increase the potential membership cap on the locality bond from 3 million to 10 million. This will significantly expand the potential size of locality-based credit unions, which make up 79% of the sector, and reduce uncertainty regarding mergers;

Allow credit unions to permit students to join locality-based credit unions, in addition to those who reside or work in the geographical area;

Allow credit unions to admit members’ relatives into a credit union regardless of whether they live in the same household as the qualifying member, as well as individuals who live in the same household as the qualifying member. This will better reflect modern family dynamics and broaden the membership base; and

Allow credit unions to retain members of occupation and employer bonds as fully qualifying members upon retirement, including allowing retirees to join a credit union after retirement has begun. This will also apply to locality bonds where members are eligible based on employment within the locality.

These reforms will help credit unions grow sustainably so that more people across the UK can access affordable, community-based financial services.

This announcement complements broader work to support credit unions, including the Prudential Regulation Authority’s policy statement on credit union service organisations², the £30 million credit union transformation fund for England announced as part of the financial inclusion strategy and led by Fair4AllFinance, and the FCA and PRA’s planned review of the regulatory framework for credit unions, as set out in the mutuals landscape report published on 5 December 2025.³

These reforms also form part of the Government’s work on our manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative and mutuals sector, in partnership with the sector.

The full call for evidence response describing these reforms in detail is published on gov.uk:

https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/credit-union-common-bond-reform

¹https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6909ed8db04a520c5051843f/Financial_Inclusion_Report.pdf



² https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/publication/2026/february/credit-union-service-organisations-policy-statement

³https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/prudential-regulation/publication/2025/december/mutuals-landscape-report-2025.pdf

[HCWS1418]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lucy Rigby Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Budget in November was a Budget to build a stronger, more secure economy. It contained fair and necessary choices to deliver the public’s priorities by cutting the cost of living, cutting debt and borrowing, cutting child poverty, and cutting NHS waiting lists. At its heart were three deliberate pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability and getting inflation and interest rates down, we gave businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we protected over £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing British companies of the future, we supported the investment, the innovation and the economic dynamism that will increase growth, raise living standards, and boost the country’s prosperity in the next decade and beyond. The measures in the Bill deliver on those choices by introducing tax levers to unlock investment, back our wealth creators and attract talent by sticking to commitments in the corporate tax road map to provide certainty for businesses, and by doubling the limits for our enterprise tax incentives so that scale-ups can attract the capital and talent that they need in order to grow.

The Bill contains a series of other responsible decisions on tax, and that is because, at the time of the Budget, the Government faced choices. We could have made the reckless choice to abandon our fiscal rules and let borrowing and debt increase, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to get borrowing, debt and inflation down, more than doubling our headroom. We could have made the irresponsible choice and returned to austerity, cutting public services as the Conservative party did and undermining capital investment, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to protect the investment in Britain’s infrastructure and to build a better, stronger, more secure economy.

In line with our commitment to fiscal responsibility, the Bill maintains income tax thresholds for employees and the self-employed at the current levels for a further three years, from April 2028 until April 2031. It also contains measures to strengthen the integrity of the tax system by closing loopholes and removing barriers. That includes reforms to collect more unpaid taxes and to modernise the tax system to make it easier for taxpayers to get their tax right first time. We are introducing new powers to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance, and to challenge those who knowingly engage in fraudulent business in the construction industry. Alongside the measures announced in the 2024 Budget, the measures in the Bill to close the tax gap will bring the total revenue from tax gap measures announced in this Parliament to £10 billion in 2029-30.

I wholeheartedly thank all Members, on both sides of the House, for their contributions during the Bill’s passage. The Bill contains the right choices for the public finances, the right choices on investment, the right choices for businesses and for working people, the right choices for our public services, and the right choices for Britain. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.