Car Insurance Industry: Fraud

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of fraud in the car insurance industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. Before I start, I thank the Minister; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier); and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for being here to respond to the debate. This issue cuts across several Departments, and my main ask is for a co-ordinated response to it across Government.

I will touch on many types of fraud in the car insurance industry, but I want particularly to draw the Minister’s attention to paid ad spoofing, which came to my attention after a constituent fell afoul of the scam. Because their case is yet to come to court, I cannot give any specifics of it—I can reassure you, Ms Lewell, that I have checked the content of my speech with the Clerks—but it is typical of the problem.

On its website, the Association of British Insurers describes paid ad spoofing as follows:

“Paid Ad Spoofing involves scammers who use paid advert spoof websites to appear at the top of search engines usually to trick drivers into thinking they will be directed to the website of the genuine insurer. Scammers target motorists when they’re most vulnerable after road traffic accidents. When a driver uses their smartphone to start initiating a claim from the roadside, they may be directed to the website of an unscrupulous firm instead of their insurer. Scammers will ask for personal details to provide ‘support services’ and potentially make a claim. They use psychological tactics to befriend, reassure and pressure victims, while all the time collecting personal information for financial gain.”

Let us imagine a scenario: you are driving along in a blame-free manner, and some idiot pulls out of a side road and hits you. It is unfortunate, but these things happen. Nevertheless, you are very shaken up. You both pull over and agree to swap insurance details. If your car is not moveable, you will need to arrange for it to be towed away. You do not have your insurance details on you, but you know the company you are insured with, so you google their phone number. You see your insurance company and its logo at the top of the results. You ring and you get through to someone who sounds very sympathetic, and they arrange to tow your car away.

Over the next few days, you are repeatedly in touch with them. They convince you that you need to hire a car, they sort out your repairs and they send you paperwork to sign for all those things. At no point do they tell you they are not your insurance company, but the reality is that they are not, and the fees that have been racked up for the tow truck, the repairs and the car hire are potentially excessive. They may also have invited you to see a doctor, maybe in a hotel or other obscure location, and convinced you that there is a valid claim for whiplash or other injury as well.

What is the problem with all this? Basically, behind the fake ad is an organisation that will claim for all these costs in a court case, based on the fact that it was not your fault. If they lose that court case, you are on the hook for the exorbitant costs. On top of that, you will have had an accident and failed to tell your insurance company, and there are potential legal ramifications of that as well.

I have been shocked to find out that there are qualified solicitors working for no win, no fee firms involved in this type of scam. These firms are fully registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. How can that possibly be ethical? It is clearly dishonest, and for that reason I would argue it is barely legal.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is setting out an extraordinary situation. I want to draw her attention to another real challenge facing drivers: collisions with people who are not insured. Uninsured drivers cost the economy £1 billion a year, and they are disproportionately likely to be involved in collisions, speeding and hit-and-run incidents. That is why I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill last year to increase penalties, and I was delighted to see the Government take up that call for action in their road safety strategy. Is the hon. Lady aware of the massive issue of uninsured drivers, as well as the scams she is reporting on, and does she welcome further action on it?

[Helen Morgan]

I am aware, because I was once hit by an uninsured driver. It is incredibly stressful not knowing how to get the car fixed and whether it is going to be written off. I was very young and did not know how I was going to afford to deal with that problem. I welcome any measures to deal with uninsured drivers. At the heart of this issue is the fact that insurance fraud is not a victimless crime. The victim is put through an extremely stressful time, and everyone else pays through higher premiums. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue.

Let me return to my point about solicitors, who are supposedly bound by the ethical codes of their regulator. I am a chartered accountant. In every profession, there are individuals who let us down from time to time, but there are clearly described ethical standards to which members of our organisation should adhere. We must undertake annual training on spotting problematic ethical situations, which for an accountant may not always be clearcut.

I know that other professional bodies have a similar approach to this issue—yet a solicitor can work for a firm benefiting from this type of scam activity, and the firm might be fully registered with the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I argue that the SRA needs to up its game, because those individuals are bringing their profession into disrepute, seemingly with the blessing of the organisation that is supposed to uphold standards. Will the Minister have conversations with her colleagues across the Government to deal with this problem? Surely, people in this country should be able to trust a legal professional, and the Government should be taking steps to ensure that the profession has its house in order.

There is a related point: the websites and search engines that host these paid ads are clearly designed to defraud and mislead. When will we hold the tech companies to account for the content that they host? Surely, they should have a duty to do a basic level of due diligence on the ads they place at the top of their search results. The online world is a free-for-all, where some of the most powerful companies in the world absolutely disregard basic levels of morality so long as they are paid. What can be done to introduce some sort of regulation to crack down on fraud and prevent it from happening in the first place—essentially, when it is perpetuated online? The only people who are not paying anything are the owners of the companies that host the problem.

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), fraud is not a victimless crime. In the case of motor insurance fraud, every driver is paying in the form of increased insurance premiums. When someone is the victim of a scam, they are left shaken, with their confidence knocked, and potentially significantly out of pocket too. My constituent is a retired professional. The realisation that they have fallen victim to a scam has had a profound effect on their self-esteem.

Paid ad spoofing is not the only type of motor insurance fraud. I thank the ABI, Aviva, Admiral and the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers for getting in touch in advance of this debate and providing briefings. Fraud remains the single greatest threat facing the UK, accounting for about 44% of all crime reported in England and Wales. It continues to pose a serious and systemic challenge to the insurance industry, and ultimately to honest motorists and consumers who are forced to pay the price.

In 2024 alone, £1.16 billion of fraudulent general insurance claims were identified, which was a further increase on the already staggering £1.14 billion detected the year before. Motor insurance remains the area most affected, with insurers uncovering more than 51,700 fraudulent motor claims worth £576 million. That is 5% higher than in 2023 and represents more than half of all detected insurance fraud.

The ABI has written to me to say that insurers are investing heavily to tackle the problem. Its members spend more than £200 million each year to combat fraud, including funding the Insurance Fraud Bureau, which leads the fight against organised insurance crime, and the insurance fraud enforcement department in the City of London police. Unsurprisingly, motor insurance fraud is the most prominent focus of investigation and enforcement activity. However, I argue that, in the case of paid ad spoofing, where there are properly registered firms clogging up the courts with excessive claims that could have been sorted out through the normal insurance settlement process, those organisations are operating in plain sight. I urge fraud specialists to investigate that.

Other types of fraud are equally serious. One of the most concerning trends is the rise of ghost broking, which is a crime where fraudsters sell fake or invalid car insurance policies to unsuspecting customers. Criminals obtain policies using false information to reduce premiums, then manipulate documentation to make those policies appear legitimate. The consequences for their victims are severe. Many believe that they are fully insured, only to find that they hold no valid cover under UK law. That often only comes to light when they are stopped by the police or attempt to make a claim following an accident. Drivers caught without valid insurance face vehicle seizure, potentially unlimited fines and even driving bans. Victims are then left to cover repair costs themselves and find new insurance, often at a much higher premium.

Although ghost broking was once carried out face to face, social media has transformed its reach. Fraudsters now routinely target people online, with younger drivers particularly at risk. That group are more likely to seek cheaper insurance options and engage with sellers via social media platforms. The scale of the problem is deeply concerning. Data published by Aviva in November 2025 shows that ghost broking cases have risen by 22% over the past two years. Almost one in three people surveyed reported buying car insurance through social media, and 84% of those who purchased a fake policy online suffered serious negative consequences, including police intervention and identity theft.

On average, those victims lose around £2,000, excluding the additional costs of fines, vehicle seizure, legal consequences and higher future premiums. That is a heavy burden to place on people who believed they were just doing the right thing. Again, the social media and online companies who host those adverts are the only ones not paying the price. I repeat my concern that this area is effectively unregulated.

As I have said, fraud is not a victimless crime. It drives up premiums for everyone and leaves individuals facing financial and legal consequences through no fault of their own. Tackling it effectively requires robust enforcement, proactive investigation and a willingness to change harmful practices wherever they occur, particularly when they are happening in full view of the system.

In the interests of time, and because many of them have been well rehearsed over the years, I have not touched on the other types of fraud for which we all must pay: fake claims, orchestrated crashes and even inflated claims, which large numbers of people admit to even though it is a criminal offence. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, particularly regarding the unethical practices of some in the legal profession and the steps that can be taken to prevent online giants helping to perpetuate this problem. I particularly look forward to her describing how we can look at this problem across Government, because I fear that it is falling between the stalls of the various Departments that have an interest in it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I genuinely thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate. I will confine my remarks to ghost broking, which she referred to. I gave a speech on that subject at the Association of British Insurers last year, and I have a keen interest in it, given that I had a career in counter-fraud.

The first point that I want to make is about the nature of the phantom protection that consumers so often receive when they purchase ghost car insurance cover. I am increasingly concerned about the use of AI in fabricating insurance documents. They look genuine to many consumers, so we really must ensure that there is consumer awareness around such uses of AI.

I am also concerned that, with ghost broking in particular, there are some instances where it is operating at scale. It is not just the product of a few rogue actors operating from their basements, or something like that; often, it is a systematised attack used by organised crime groups to target vulnerable groups. I will talk next about what I see as systemic predation and the predatory behaviour of some of these ghost brokers.

Let us imagine a young driver, aged about 17 or 18. They might have a little C1 or another small car, something with a 1.0 litre engine, and they might have their very first job after leaving home—a job that they depend on for their way of life and livelihood. They need that car to get to work. We all know about the very high premiums that young drivers face, so many of them unfortunately fall into the hands of ghost brokers. They face many different losses: not only the loss of their premium but, if they were to unfortunately become involved in an accident, the consequences for their personal finances. The effect of uninsured driving is very much a double whammy, especially for young drivers in such circumstances.

We heard from the hon. Member for North Shropshire that these ghost brokers increasingly operate on social media. I really believe that the Financial Conduct Authority can go further, with Ofcom and some of the social media platforms, to call out that behaviour. There is a conversation to be had about the verification process that social media platforms go through when they receive advertising revenue. Those platforms—be they Meta, TikTok or whatever—should not be making money from ghost broking ads.

The ABI was spot on in trying to create greater consumer awareness of this problem. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to join me in saying a very common Yorkshire phrase: “If it’s too good to be true, it probably is.” That really applies to many of the policies sold by ghost brokers. The ABI has called for greater consumer awareness of the risk of ghost broking, and I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to join me in supporting that call today.

I am concerned about the statistics from the ABI that show an upward trajectory in ghost broking—for example, there has been a 22% increase in ghost broking over the last couple of years. In addition, there are over 50,000 motor insurance scams, worth half a billion pounds in total, and up to half of all fraudulent claims could feature some aspect of ghost broking. Really staggeringly, around three in 10 young drivers have purchased insurance from illegal sellers on social media, and the average loss per victim is around £2,000, even though an annual premium is obviously less than that. This means that, for many years, many drivers have been going about on the roads uninsured.

The final issue with ghost broking that I want to talk about is the “second wave” that I have heard about anecdotally from those in the sector. Once the ghost broker is there, then, like a vampire, they have got their victim and they steal some of their identity. They then resell that identity, or part of it, for the purposes of identity theft later on. Not only have uninsured drivers, including young drivers, bought the ghost broker’s policy—that is, they lost their premium and have been uninsured; they may even have been in an accident or whatever—but some years down the line, they might become a victim of identity theft too.

We must have a conversation about having a specific offence of identity theft. Although this does not relate to car insurance, I will briefly tell Members the story of a constituent who served abroad in the armed forces and who had his identity stolen. He found out that mobile phone contracts had been taken out in his name, and I worked with him to get his credit file back on track and to get some of this expunged—some of the credit reference agencies were very slow in righting this wrong.

In the end, there was no financial loss to my constituent, but it had a big impact on his life. He was serving overseas and his credit file had been wrecked; when his partner then found a perfect family home for them, he unfortunately realised he could not get a mortgage. He had come back from deployment, and he knew he would be in the UK for a year or two, so he wanted to use that time to settle into a family home. That was his dream—he had been apart from his girlfriend for some time—but he could not do that because his credit file had been wrecked. I had to sort that out with him, and it was all the consequence of his identity having been stolen.

Identity theft is not a victimless crime. It is particularly acute when it comes to car insurance, but we must tackle it in all its forms. As part of the next iteration of the Government’s fraud strategy, I would welcome a specific offence of identity theft. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is a broad vehicle according to some of the police I speak to, and it would be beneficial to have a specific offence of identity theft.

[Peter Swallow]

At the start of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned the involvement of AI in this. That issue was raised with me by the Thames Valley police roads team, which said it is now quite possible for uninsured drivers to use AI to generate a fake insurance document at the roadside, and in that way to prevent the police from tackling this crime. I detect that my hon. Friend may know more about this than me, so I encourage him to say a little more about it before he wraps up his excellent speech.

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that example. Large language models can be in one’s pocket, and such documents can be generated even without internet connectivity. When I was in the counter-fraud sector, I used some of the AI models that criminals had in order to create hypothetical, fabricated documents. My team created some of those documents—bank statements and identity documents—and showed them to me alongside real documents—and I, an experienced fraud practitioner, could not tell the difference with my eyes. We are now having to use digital tools to detect AI manipulation; sometimes the eye of the beholder is insufficient to detect that a document has been fabricated by AI. As a fraud practitioner, one has to stay one step ahead of the fraudsters. I invite the police to think about how they could do that, using AI themselves to detect documents fabricated by AI.

It has been a hearty discussion today. I call on the FCA to work closely with Ofcom and social media companies to quickly put a stop to the revenue connected to many of these ads, because that would curtail a lot of this activity. We have to have much greater verification in place when it comes to ads relating to insurance, and the social media platforms have to do something very simple: check that the originator of the ad is actually registered by the FCA.

I hope that some of these straightforward calls can be answered, and that the Minister will join me in saying that if something is too good to be true, it probably is. We need greater consumer awareness when it comes to car insurance fraud more generally.

Road Safety

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Road safety is one of the top issues that constituents write to me about. That is why I took the opportunity to hear from nearly 1,000 Bracknell Forest residents on this issue over the summer, as I conducted my summer campaign on road safety. Those conversations and speaking with many incredible charities and organisations in Bracknell Forest and beyond impressed on me the need for greater action on uninsured drivers.

Those who drive uninsured are statistically more likely to be involved in road accidents, as well as to commit other risky offences on the road, including hit-and-run incidents and speeding. Towards the end of last year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to bring in tougher measures, and I thank the Minister for listening to my constituents and launching a consultation on a review of the motoring offences framework, which has not been updated since 1988.

Uninsured driving was not the only issue raised with me by residents. Speeding is a concern for so many who use the roads responsibly. They see it happening, and they know that they and their loved ones are put at risk by this dangerous behaviour. In fact, more than 70% of respondents to my road safety survey agreed that people drive too quickly down residential and main roads in Bracknell Forest. I am therefore pleased that the Government are publishing new guidance for setting local speed limits and updating guidance on the use of speed cameras and red-light cameras.

I pay tribute to the work already undertaken by Thames Valley police on vehicle offences more generally. Vehicle crime in Bracknell Forest is down 14% compared with the end of 2024, and I know that our local policing team has been working hard to crack down on offences including illegal car meets and uninsured driving. We have already heard from many Members about potholes, so I will quickly welcome the nearly £17 million invested by this Government in our local roads over the course of this spending period.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

This is a rare and serious conduct motion that calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, breaking promises on tax and breaching the OBR confidentiality process—in short, for not being straight with the British people.

I was expecting to refer to more contributions this afternoon, but it has been a slightly curtailed debate. [Interruption.] We had the comprehensive introduction from my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) were surprised and disappointed that the Chancellor is being held to account not for her personality, but for her conduct. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just said, this debate is about honesty, trust and confidence and what happens as a result, and about the “shenanigans”, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) put it.

On Times Radio this morning, the shadow Chancellor was asked why this debate matters. It matters because the deliberate briefing and misrepresentation of the Budget has damaged workers, savers, pensioners and investors. Let us start with the simple truth: this Government and the Chancellor spun false narratives about the public finances to justify their political choices to increase welfare spending.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

During the Budget debate, I asked the shadow Chancellor whether he would address the fact that, on multiple occasions, he referred to the public finances in a fantastically negative tone that appeared far from the truth that was revealed at the Budget, suggesting at one point that there was a £40 billion black hole in the public finances. As the shadow Minister says that we were not being straight with the public about the state of the public finances, will he take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of his colleague for doing just that?

[James Wild]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the whole debate, he would have had the opportunity of the opening 45-minute speech to put that to my right hon. Friend.

What happened as a result of all the policy kites that were flown? Pensions were drawn down, fewer mortgages were approved and investment was paused. That is not my verdict; the Bank of England warned that the economy was heading for slowdown as a result of the uncertainty, the British Chambers of Commerce said that that uncertainty affected investment and recruitment, and hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions. Those are the real impacts of that activity—the shenanigans—and there is genuine anger across the country at the damage such uncertainty caused. The Chancellor must take responsibility because she is responsible for that uncertainty.

People are already cynical about politics, but what could do more to undermine trust than abusing the OBR process to cook up a story to make a case for higher taxes that were not needed? It is the Chancellor who is at the centre of misleading the country. On 4 November, she staged that unprecedented press conference to roll the pitch for tax rises.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

This Government take the role of the independent adviser on ministerial standards incredibly seriously and abide by his rulings. We know what damage the previous Government did to trust in politics. It would be foolish to suggest that no Government at any point in the future will ever face difficulties, but it is how the Government respond to those difficulties that matters. This Government have shown that we respond in a way that is transparent, fair and brings an end to any sense that people have behaved improperly.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

On 3 September, the shadow Chancellor stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and claimed that the hole in the public finances could be as much as £40 billion. As it happens, that was not the case, not least because of the Chancellor’s steadfast commitment to stabilising our economy. Does the Minister not agree that it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to go around claiming that people are talking down the economy and talking up the gap in our public finances, when the only people doing that are them?

[James Murray]

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

Financial Inclusion

Peter Swallow 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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I do not think the borrowing costs in every major country in the world can be explained by the decisions made by this Government. As I said to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) last week, the hon. Gentleman has to get real. There have been global movements in financial markets that have affected the United Kingdom, but if he looks at the PWC report from yesterday, the most recent report on market confidence, global CEOs see the UK as the second best place in the world to invest, after the US.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The International Monetary Fund forecasts that the UK is set to be the fastest-growing major economy in Europe, which one would have thought Conservative Members would welcome. I know my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not be satisfied until residents in Bracknell, and across the country, feel the benefits of economic improvement in their pay packets and their day-to-day lives, so will she set out what more she can do to ensure we tackle the cost of living and fix the economic mess we have inherited from the Conservatives?

Fiscal Rules

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend knows that the test of a good Government is whether they can secure private sector investment to come alongside them—something that declined under the last Government. That is why the national wealth fund, which the Chancellor has announced, will secure billions of pounds of private sector investment, alongside public sector investment, in the industries of the future.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the previous Government’s failure to invest not only damaged economic growth, but led to damage to our public services, with a broken NHS, special educational needs in crisis and local government on the brink?

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend will know, from speaking to his constituents during his campaign to be elected and since, that people’s experience of public services across the country shows the fact of the matter: after 14 years of failure from the Conservatives, our public services are on their knees. That is why they need a Government who will bring stability back to our economy, invest in public services and improve outcomes for people who rely on them and work in them.

Winter Fuel Payment

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that committed to delivering economic stability, security and growth. After 14 years of Tory recklessness with our economy and after the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget drove up inflation, food bills and mortgage repayments and pushed my constituents to the brink, the public voted for change. That change must start with getting our economy back on its feet.

When the previous Labour Government left office, Trussell Trust food banks were giving out 40,000 food parcels a year. Last year they gave out 3 million. When we on the Labour side of the House talk about the recklessness of the previous Government, it is not academic. We are talking about taxpayers’ money being poured into ideological gimmicks while children are going to school hungry, working adults are one rent rise away from homelessness and a broken NHS is stalling productivity and failing those who most rely on public services, including our pensioners. We face a £22 billion black hole in the public finances that they covered up and walked away from.

Stability means bringing the economy and the country back from the brink to which the Conservative party knowingly pushed it. No one doubts that this policy is tough, and it is not a measure we want to take, but we have been left a huge bill to pay. Means-testing the winter fuel allowance will allow us to support those pensioners most in need as we take the difficult steps we have to take to right the ship.

Members across this House know that in our communities there are too many pensioners struggling. That is why I welcome this Government’s commitment to the triple lock, under which the state pension has risen by £900 this year and will rise by more than £450 in April. I also support the extension of the warm home discount, worth £150 for more than 1 million low-wage pensioners.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Tory triple lock was introduced by the Tories, precisely in order to deal with the legacy left by the previous Labour Government when, unless I have got this number wrong, there was a lower take-up of pension credit than there is today—we raised that. The triple lock raised pensioner incomes, and the first act of the Labour Government, of whom he is clearly aiming to be a loyal member, is to take £300 away from people who really need it.

[Peter Swallow]

Three million food parcels were distributed last year. That is the legacy of the Conservative Government. And the triple lock that the Conservatives purport to defend? They broke it in 2022.

I also support the extension of the household support fund to help the families most in need this winter, as well as the Government’s commitment to introducing tougher regulation to the energy market, which has let customers down for too long. I am working hard with Bracknell Forest council to ensure that pensioners in the Bracknell constituency who are in need but not claiming the support to which they are entitled are identified and encouraged to get help. I urge any pensioner who is concerned about their finances to go to Age UK’s benefits calculator to see what support they may be entitled to.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

What did the hon. Gentleman say to pensioners during the election campaign?

[Peter Swallow]

I said that the Labour party would restore the broken economy inherited from the Conservative party.

In the long term, there is only one permanent solution to ending fuel poverty: we must end our dependence on volatile foreign energy markets and deliver lasting energy security. The Conservative party failed to do that in Government, leaving energy bills higher for every household, including those most in need. That is why this Government’s plan to create GB Energy, a new national energy company, is vital. It will bring energy supply back into the hands of the British public and help to get prices back under control. That is the long-term solution to fuel poverty: home-grown, British-controlled power.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

Roughly 13,000 people in the hon. Gentleman’s Bracknell constituency will not get the winter fuel allowance this year as a result of the changes that he has just voted for. How many of them does he estimate will struggle to pay their bills?

[Peter Swallow]

I have already set out the support that I want to see, as well as the support that the Government have put in place to help pensioners in my constituency and to bring energy bills down in the long term, which will help all households in Bracknell and across the country. That is a really important first step on the road to growth. Because of the triple lock, a growing economy means growing pensions and growing support for pensioners in need.

Future prosperity does not fall out of the sky. We have to create the conditions for it, and those conditions are sensible spending, bringing debt under control, and encouraging investment. To do those things, we must dig ourselves out of this financial hole, and that means tough choices. This policy is a difficult step—a step that I did not want to take—but it is a step away from the brink towards stability, security and growth. That is why I back it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

The change that the Government announced this morning will mean than 18,300 of my constituents will go without their winter fuel payment this Christmas. In the brief time that I have, I will set out why I believe that is just the start from the Government.

The first reason is that cutting winter fuel payments for poorer pensioners is a political choice, not a necessity, despite what the Leader of the House says. Over the election period, Labour said that it would not cut the winter fuel payment. It has broken its promise to the British people, and they will remember that. Labour also said that it would possibly do more, although it has denied that it would not do more. Today’s measures will save £1 billion, as I outlined in my earlier intervention, but Labour has awarded inflation-busting pay rises of £9 billion to its union paymasters.

[Peter Swallow]

Can the hon. Member explain to the House and to his constituents why he would not back fair pay rises for teachers, nurses, prison officers and members of the armed forces in his constituency?

[Paul Holmes]

I will not take any lectures from the hon. Member, but I say to him that I always defend pay rises for people in this country who deserve them, which is exactly what the Conservative Government did. What our Government did not do was award inflation-busting pay rises of 22% to the people who paid for our general election campaign, increasing inflation in this country. I believe that people deserve pay rises, but that should be done within a responsible fiscal envelope. The Labour Government simply have not done that.

As we heard from the Chancellor earlier, the measures that she has announced will cost more than the savings generated from scrapping the winter fuel payments—that is a shambles. The Government have done this at a time when energy bills will increase by 10%, despite the Labour party’s promise in Opposition that it would freeze energy bills—another broken promise that pensioners will have to face this Christmas. The Government have also refused to rule out scrapping the 25% single occupancy discount for pensioners and single people. If that goes ahead, they will deprive pensioners of another £600 on average. That is a political choice and a cost of living bombshell that this Labour Government—supposedly the party of hard-working people—will impose on vulnerable and poorer pensioners across the country.

Labour Members have a choice this afternoon and going forward. They should reverse the cut, stand up for the thousands of people in their constituencies who will be made poorer by the Government, and reject the measures that they outlined earlier. Let me put it this way: 18,000 people in my constituency rely on the winter fuel payment, as do thousands of Labour Members’ constituents. When we go to the ballot box in four years’ time, I look forward to Labour Members standing up and explaining to those pensioners why they made them poorer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will the Chancellor explain to the House the damage done to pensioners’ livelihoods by the previous Government’s economic incompetence and their decision to cover up the £22 billion black hole in the public finances?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind us of the dire inheritance that this Government face. The previous Government made spending commitment after spending commitment with absolutely no idea of how to pay for them. From road and rail projects to A-levels and the Rwanda deal, we saw £22 billion of unfunded commitments. We will fix the foundations of the economy, rebuild Britain and ensure that working people are better off. We will fix the mess that the last Government left.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents will rightly be annoyed with the previous Government for saying that they would go ahead with the A303 work but not budgeting a single penny for it. That is where the responsibility lies for these failures and for the difficult announcements that I have had to make today.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Cash-strapped councils are projected to spend £12 billion to support children with special educational needs and disabilities by 2026. That is up from £4 billion a decade ago. Does the Chancellor agree that the Tories’ failure to get to grips with the SEN crisis has put public finances at risk while letting SEN children down?

[Rachel Reeves]

I think every single Member of the House will have faced often very difficult constituency casework about young people who are not getting a diagnosis on time and not getting the support they need at school. We will set out all our spending plans and priorities at the spending review later this year.