Bank Closures and Banking Hubs

Naushabah Khan Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

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

Access to cash is important, but it is only one part of the story. The closure of bank branches strips communities across our country not just of access to money, but of access to advice and support services that cannot simply be replicated online. It goes further than that. For some elderly residents this is about a sense of community and purpose, such as the weekly trip with friends to interact with others, plan a food shop, go to a supermarket or even visit friends.

I remember when I was a child, when my grandfather was due to make his regular trip to the bank, he would get suited and booted, have a haircut and tell us all proudly that he was off to the bank. It was also the highlight of my week, because I always received a £5 note afterwards.

In my constituency of Gillingham and Rainham, I was pleased to announce only last week that we will be getting a banking hub, following a recent campaign. For clarity, we do have a Nationwide on site at the minute. I have heard directly from residents about how much this means to them. I have received numerous letters describing their struggles when they have not been able to access banking services. Many residents have described long journeys to neighbouring towns, often relying on friends or public transport just to withdraw cash or speak to somebody in person.

Other residents have spoken of the confusion and anxiety caused by using online banking that they neither trusted nor understood. We are talking about people who find themselves in effect locked out of the system simply because they do not use an app or a smartphone. These are real people in our communities, not a small minority. According to Age UK, more than 2.5 million people over 65 have never used the internet, and the access to cash review found that around 10 million UK adults would struggle in a cashless society. Many of them also lack digital literacy or the infrastructure to bank online. This includes people with disabilities, carers, those for whom English is not a first language, and people living on low incomes who cannot afford broadband or mobile data. We should not expect them to adapt to a system that was not designed for them in the first place.

The reality is that high street banks have for some time been taking decisions based on commercial viability rather than community need. I understand that banks are not charities, but the Government do have a responsibility to ensure that no one is cut off from basic services because they are not digital or because they are not profitable. If we want to prevent digital exclusion from becoming a permanent feature of our society, banking hubs must be part of a national strategy. That includes ensuring they are well-promoted, well-resourced and available in all the places of greatest need.

I am pleased that my constituency will benefit from a banking hub, but we need to go further. The criteria need to change, and we must ensure this is based not just on access to cash but, importantly, on the services that banking hubs provide to a community.

Finance Bill

Naushabah Khan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in tonight’s debate on the Finance Bill, and on the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled. The debate follows several remarkable days and this afternoon’s session when pretty much the whole House came together to congratulate the Prime Minister on his composure and leadership on Ukraine. The need to rebuild our military capability and our hard power as this decade goes on, if we are to ensure the security of Ukraine, Europe, including the UK, and the wider world, was made clear. The Finance Bill has been introduced in that context, because the only way to deliver that security is by having a strong economy and the economic growth that colleagues from across the House have discussed, yet this Budget is the most growth-destructive Budget imaginable.

As we look at the amendments and new clauses, it is worth going back over the context of the Bill, following the pandemic and the energy crisis, which continues in some ways. Thanks to the hard decisions made by the Conservatives, which did not always lead to our popularity and in fact contributed to our electoral disaster last July, inflation was back on target at 2% when the election came. We were the fastest growing economy in the G7 and some 4 million additional jobs had been created. That was the legacy. The incoming Labour Government, with their unprecedented majority and the good will to get on and do something, needed to hold their nerve and recognise that the key components for economic growth had been put in place, which was vital to meet the demands of the NHS, an ageing population and an ever more dangerous world. Instead, what we got from this Labour Government was the most disastrous economic suicide note in history, which has been devastating for the popularity of their party. Never has such a huge majority been squandered so quickly.

New clause 1 addresses the tax that will be taken from a state pension. The Labour Government propose that someone whose only income is the state pension could pay tax on that income. Forget the winter fuel payment being taken away as well—is that really what Labour Members came here hoping to do? I do not think they did, so new clause 1, which would ensure that we look at that, understand it and look for opportunities to change it, is sensible.

New clause 3 looks at the overall tax impact on households and sets our an approach that has to be right. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) gave a powerful speech at the beginning of the debate and I fully support the points he made.

We have heard powerful speeches from across the House on special educational needs. Again, I say to Labour Members, did they really get elected to come here and target children with special educational needs? Some 100,000 children who are in the private sector do not have an education, health and care plan, even though they are eligible for one. They will be forced out of their schools with no notice and no time to change and plan. It is a cruel policy that the Labour party should be ashamed of. I fully support amendments 67 to 69, which focus on VAT on private school, as well as new clause 7 proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which was spoken to powerfully by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper).

On non-doms, it is ironic that, as colleagues have said, the Government have not listened to pensioners, small businesses, farmers and all those with domestic interests. One might have thought that the Government would want to listen to them, reflect and make some changes to lower the negative impacts, but none of them has been listened to in the least. But non-doms in Davos? The Chancellor has gone off there and there is some change on non-doms, but let us not let the Government off entirely on that, because driving out the very rich, who bring us a massively disproportionate amount of revenue, is not sensible.

Socialists often put equality above all other values. As Churchill said:

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”—[Official Report, 22 October 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1703.]

One of the greatest ways of creating more equality in this country is to drive all the rich people out; drive all the people out who invest, give us jobs and take little from public services, but contribute enormously to them. That always goes down well with the union backers of the Labour party.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I promised I would not go on for too long, so I am going to sit down—[Interruption.]