Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

Rachel Blake Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)]

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

The conflict in the middle east has left British families and businesses exposed to volatile gas prices, which has made things more expensive for those who drive for work, including care workers. Even though much of the country’s electricity comes from cheaper renewables and nuclear, electricity prices are still largely set by gas, which means that running a wash, turning on the lights or boiling the kettle has also become more costly for families across the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in May, the Government are keenly aware of the costs that the conflict in the middle east will impose on British people. The Government have taken steps to put our economic security and national security first. The Chancellor has committed to doing what she can to support families and businesses; to being responsive to a changing world; and to being responsible, in the national interest.

Some legacy renewable energy generators stand to benefit from the disparity when higher gas prices determine the price of electricity. Without any new costs or risks, those generators receive extraordinary revenues. The electricity generator levy already recoups some of the excess returns made by renewable generators when electricity prices are over £82.61 per MWh, but the Government have decided to increase the rate of the levy from 45% to 55% from today, 1 July.

The rate rise will have two main benefits. It will ensure that a larger proportion of any exceptional revenues from high gas prices are passed back to the Government. That will provide a vital revenue stream, so that money is available to the Government to support businesses and families with the impact of the conflict in the middle east. In the longer term, the increase in the EGL rate will also encourage participation in the new voluntary contract for difference scheme, announced in April—part of a broader package of measures that break the link between electricity and gas prices. Importantly, new investment is excluded from the levy. This ensures that the measure is targeted solely at legacy windfall returns, and does not deter future clean energy development.

In March, the Government announced a review of mileage rates for employees who use their own vehicle for work, and for the self-employed who use the simplified expenses rates. In recognition of the pressures facing drivers as a result of the conflict in the middle east, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in May the first uprating of mileage rates in 15 years. It was backdated to April, to provide immediate support to both groups. Mileage rates will increase for 2026-27 from 45p to 55p for the first 10,000 miles and 25p thereafter, with effect from 6 April 2026.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. This is fantastic news for my constituents, my farmers and my businesses. Does she welcome the statement from the End Fuel Poverty Coalition, which said that increasing the rates of approved mileage allowance payments is absolutely the right thing to do right now?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful intervention. I absolutely agree that this will make a real difference to those workers who drive for their work. This is a long overdue measure, and I am very happy to put the Bill forward today.

The proposals represent the largest ever increase to the mileage rates, benefiting around 2 million employees and 1 million self-employed individuals, and saving over £120 a year for a worker doing 6,000 business miles. Looking beyond 2026-27, the Government have already committed to a review of the rates, and will set that out at the Budget.

Recognising the key role that the road haulage sector plays in transporting goods across the UK, and its disproportionate exposure to fuel costs, the Government are introducing a 12-month holiday from vehicle excise duty for the majority of heavy goods vehicles for licences taken out between 1 July 2026—today—and 30 June 2027. That will save a typical HGV £600, on top of savings from fuel duty. Fuel costs make up a substantial proportion of HGV operating costs, and this action will help prevent cost pressures arising from the conflict in the middle east spreading across the economy.

The announcements on mileage rates and HGV VED were part of a wider package of measures announced in May, including on fuel duty. In total, the decisions taken since the 2024 general election to freeze fuel duty will save motorists 11p per litre, or £120 for the average car, £250 for the average van and over £2,000 for the average HGV, compared to previous plans. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Financial Inclusion: Young People

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am grateful that my first chance to speak as the Minister in Westminster Hall is in such a thorough and rich debate on this topic. Let me join in with the tradition of talking about our first job by saying that I spent many a happy afternoon doing a Saturday job on the high street in a sadly now-closed women’s retailer. I am very proud that jobs like that still exist: it gave me a thorough and deep understanding of the importance of the high street.

It would be impossible to cover or respond to all of the rich and broad points that have been raised this afternoon. I also want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) a chance to respond; I thank him for securing this debate and for all his work to focus the Government and colleagues on young people and the particular challenges that they face.

We have had a really broad range of contributions, including from the hon. Members for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Jas Athwal), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for York Outer (Mr Charters) and for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting). It has been a powerful debate. We can all agree on the importance of ensuring that everyone across the UK has access to affordable financial products and services to enable them to engage in the economy. In responding, I want to talk briefly about youth employment and support for mental health, and then try to get through the questions put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford.

Following the Milburn report and the contributions made today, we have to be clear that the Government are in no way complacent about youth unemployment. We are absolutely determined to unlock the potential of young people across the UK. Funding for employment support is increasing to more than £3.75 billion per year by 2028-29. At the last Budget, the Government committed to more than £1.5 billion to back young people through the youth guarantee and invest additional funding in the growth and skills levy.

This afternoon, we have heard interesting suggestions as to how that work can be undertaken, whether it is in youth hubs or in other youth settings. It is the responsibility of us all to consider how that investment can be made most effective, with industry working with the Government to provide jobs guarantees for a wide range of people and ensure that there are youth jobs grants under which businesses receive £3,000 for every young person they hire between the ages of 18 and 24. This is a partnership approach between industry and Government, and one that I believe will make a real difference.

I also want to talk about the significant issue of mental health and its prevalence in society, particularly among young people. Today, we are talking specifically about its interaction with financial inclusion. The strategy recognises that mental health can significantly affect people’s ability to access and use financial services, along with the interrelationship between people’s mental health and their attitudes and ability to work with particular financial products. It is therefore important that we strengthen the support available for individuals through interventions to improve debt collection practices, expand the breathing space scheme to support individuals in problem debt during a mental health crisis, and examine how pre-existing mental health conditions are treated in the travel insurance market. Each of those approaches is very much under way.

[Robbie Moore]

I welcome the Minister to her place. On the issue of mental health, many young people in my constituency raise the challenge of getting into work. With youth unemployment now at record levels, does she realise that one of the best ways of tackling mental health issues is to enable people to get into the job market in the first place, so that they do not have the additional pressure and anxiety of not being able to earn funds? Does she not recognise that things like employer national insurance, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and minimum wage increases have exacerbated the unemployment figures? Will she work with industry to address the concerns that are being raised with me and, I am sure, with her in her new role?

[Rachel Blake]

As the hon. Member will expect, I disagree with his characterisation of employer NI and the Employment Rights Act. I remind him of the positive impact that both those measures are having on workers, our NHS and the services that they are funding, and of the specific ways in which they operate with young people. His evidence base therefore does not entirely stack up.

I turn to the issue of building up a credit record. The Government are continuing to engage with the FCA on its work with industry to tackle thin credit files. As part of that, the FCA has recently consulted on introducing mandatory credit information sharing by regulated firms, which would mean that any firm reporting to one designated credit reference agency must report the same information to all such agencies, ensuring full and consistent information on a consumer’s file.

To give my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford a chance to respond, I will rattle through actions on insurance. The Government recognise the important role of insurance in supporting individuals’ financial resilience. There are pilots among social renters, led by Fair4All Finance, and the Government also recognise that affordability is a key issue.

We have had quite a thorough discussion about scam ads. The Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on the largest social media platforms to tackle fraudulent adverts. Ofcom is due to consult on those measures later this year, and once they are implemented it will be able to impose fines of up to £80 million or 10% of qualifying revenue, whichever is greater.

I certainly want to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. There is much more to cover, and I commit to doing so in writing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate, and will be happy to continue the conversation.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Blake]

No, I have finished.

[Robbie Moore]

But we have half an hour.

[Rachel Blake]

No, only three minutes.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Absolutely. You missed the cut there, Robbie. I call Josh Dean to wind up very briefly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

9. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of reducing up-front venture capital trust income tax relief on VCT fundraising.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)]

At the Budget, the Government announced a comprehensive package of entrepreneurship tax measures, designed to provide substantially enhanced support for scaling businesses across the UK. That includes doubling the maximum amount that a company can raise through the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme. Overall, the changes to those schemes are forecast to generate about £100 million per year of additional investment in high-growth, scaling companies, thanks to the increased scheme limits in the Budget.

[Alan Mak]

A recent industry survey revealed that 62% of VCT founders are scaling back growth plans, 45% are cutting headcounts, and 25% are leaving the country. Will the Government reverse the Chancellor’s plans to cut this relief, or will her legacy for Britain’s tech sector be lower growth, fewer jobs and lasting damage?

[Rachel Blake]

Absolutely not; we have real confidence in the British venture capital sector. In the 2025 Budget, we doubled the investment limits and gross assets threshold for the enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes. Those changes are supporting growth and development.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

May I start by congratulating the former Economic Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion to Chief Secretary? In the eight months that I shadowed her in her previous role, she made a strong impact and gained significant, well-deserved respect from those in the financial services industry. May I also welcome my fourth Economic Secretary, and wish her the very best of luck in the role?

As the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, tax and regulation is getting in the way of financial services lending and investing in the UK economy. Does the new Economic Secretary think that the next Chancellor will do a better job of ensuring growth for this country?

[Rachel Blake]

This Chancellor has secured six interest rate cuts. We are creating the conditions for investment in business. Investment in skills and innovation is up; investment in regional infrastructure is up; and whole-economy investment is up by 4.9% since the election. This country is the best place for start-ups and scale-ups, thanks to the economic stability that the Chancellor has been securing.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

10. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on potential funding for improving transport connectivity for border communities.

Draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 General Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. The draft regulations aim to improving the effectiveness of the UK’s anti-money laundering regime. Money laundering is not a victimless crime. It fuels serious organised crime that damages our high streets and ruins the lives of people who fall victim to fraud, human trafficking and the drugs trade. It undermines the UK’s reputation as a safe and secure place to do business and, in doing so, undermines the interests of legitimate businesses.

As new technologies emerge and criminals find new ways to launder illicit funds, the Government are taking action to turn the tide on dirty money. This includes a new high street organised crime unit, which is being set up by the National Crime Agency, backed by £30 million of additional funding over the next three years. It will target cash-intensive businesses, such as barbershops, vape stores, mini-marts and sweetshops, which are exploited by criminal groups to conceal their activities.

The draft regulations represent a significant update to the money laundering regulations, which require financial institutions and other regulated businesses to take measures to avoid being used by criminals to launder the proceeds of crime, and to ensure that any attempts to do so are detected and flagged to law enforcement. They will make a number of changes to ensure that regulatory requirements are proportionate and risk-based, while closing loopholes and making the regime clearer and easier to use. This reflects the Government’s determination to build a more effective anti-money laundering system, sitting alongside the major reforms announced last year to our anti-money laundering supervision regime.

The draft regulations consist of measures on four core themes: making customer due diligence more proportionate and effective; strengthening system co-ordination; closing loopholes in coverage; and reforming registration requirements for the trust registration service. They will also make minor and technical changes to improve consistency and ensure that the UK complies with the standards set by the Financial Action Task Force, the global standard-setter on anti-money laundering.

First, the measures on customer due diligence aim to ensure that the checks required on customers are proportionate to the risks. This includes the removal of the requirement for regulated businesses to apply enhanced due diligence checks on countries listed by the FATF as “jurisdictions under increased monitoring”; these are countries found by the FATF to have strategic deficiencies in their regimes. The FATF does not require these checks, and the Government expect that permitting more flexibility here will enable firms to focus their scrutiny on the most serious risks to the UK, as set out in the latest national risk assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing. The Government estimate that this change alone will generate savings of £178 million per year for regulated firms, which can then be reinvested in higher-value compliance activity that identifies genuinely suspicious activity.

Other changes on customer due diligence include important measures to increase the availability of pooled client accounts for businesses with a legitimate need, and to facilitate continued access to banking services for customers in the event of a bank insolvency.

I turn to system co-ordination. The draft regulations will make changes to strengthen co-operation and information-sharing between anti-money laundering supervisors and other public bodies such as Companies House, which plays an increasingly integral role in the UK’s defences against illicit finance.

To close gaps in coverage, the draft regulations will bring the activity of selling off-the-shelf firms within the scope of regulated activities. They will also make changes to ensure that owners of cryptoasset firms do not escape fit and proper checks by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Finally, I turn to the trust registration service. The draft regulations will make a number of changes to close loopholes that would be leveraged to obscure asset ownership; to improve transparency of beneficial ownership of trusts with significant UK connections; and to refine registration requirements for other types of trust.

In summary, the draft regulations contain measures to build a stronger, more risk-based and therefore more effective anti-money laundering regime. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk for his analysis and for his support for the draft regulations. I am grateful to him for saying that he hopes I will be able to address some of his points, because I wrote down all nine themes. Whether I can address them all as fully as I would like, I am not sure.

I am glad that he raised the Financial Action Task Force list, because I have spent some time over the past few days considering its impact. He is absolutely right to probe on the justification and the approach that will be taken. Some countries on the FATF increased monitoring list are recognised as presenting regional more than international risks, perhaps due to the lack of a specialist in the internationally facing financial sector or due to strict currency controls. The FATF recommends mandatory enhanced due diligence only for countries on the separate “Call for Action” list, which the hon. Member highlighted. That will mean that there is still an opportunity for enhanced due diligence, but the focus will be on those countries that are mandated by the Financial Action Task Force. This is an area for continued scrutiny, and that is something that I will do.

The hon. Member asked about the realisation of savings. Those savings were estimated in terms of the sector, and there is an expectation that it is the sector that will focus on delivering them.

A bank insolvency is obviously a very unusual event, and we are putting in place the appropriate measures to respond to that. The timing of the approach to crypto and vulnerabilities will relate to changes in controlled provisions; I believe that they will come into force for crypto firms on 25 October 2027, which will coincide with the introduction of new financial services regulatory regimes for cryptoassets.

I will come back to the hon. Member on the estimated impact and the evidence base for off-the-shelf companies. He asked for further information about the impact assessment and why more benefits cannot be monetised; I hope that he will accept a written response.

I am confident that the draft regulations will take us further forward in tackling money laundering.

Question put and agreed to.

Banking Hubs

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) for securing this debate and for setting out the concerns of not only of his constituents but, as he made clear, those of the many Members who are in the Chamber this evening who want to talk about this topic. I congratulate him on gathering people from across the country and from across different political persuasions to talk about access to banking services—I know how important it is to people.

Let me start by acknowledging the important work done on this issue by my predecessor, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), particularly in relation to the announcement of the independent review on access to banking services and the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which was introduced yesterday. I will return to that later in my speech—in fact, I will probably be referring most hon. Members’ interventions to the access to banking services review.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned interventions, so I congratulate her and welcome her to her place.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to ensuring that people up and down the country have access to banking services. In my constituency, Mr Jignesh Patel has made an excellent application to open a banking hub in his post office in Anerley, with the support of local Labour councillors for Crystal Palace and Anerley as well as residents. With an experienced team already handling sensitive financial transactions daily and existing infrastructure already in place, his post office is fully equipped to deliver a banking hub with minimal disruption. Does the Minister agree that the application process must ensure that the merits of excellent applications such as that of Mr Jignesh Patel are fully considered, giving him and others the best chance of success?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful intervention, and I wish local businesses in his constituency all the best. These decisions are made by Link, but the Government keep a very close eye on the assessment criteria.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

I want to bring a bit of good news to the House. Last month, I had the honour of cutting the ribbon on a new banking hub on Oxford Street in Ripley. It is an important facility for my constituents, but it is actually the first of its kind. It did not go through the Link procedure; it was identified as a site by Cash Access UK. It is run by and staffed entirely by Cash Access UK, so a continuing team is involved there. Will the Minister recognise the great achievement of Cash Access UK in my town and the importance of similar banking hubs across the country?

[Rachel Blake]

I absolutely recognise the importance of banking hubs, as my hon. Friend has described. I am very grateful to her for highlighting the different models available, and I very much hope that she will submit some of that evidence and the case study to the access to banking services review.

I am particularly struck by the reflections of hon. Members on the importance of banking services for those who are vulnerable, and the importance of banking services in urban and rural communities and how they have been lost.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister to her new role.

On the criteria, I have pushed for a banking hub in Budleigh Salterton for a great deal of time, but it was pushed back because there is a post office in the town. The post office was closed for 10 weeks last year, and the surrounding rural villages—places such as East Budleigh, Otterton and Colaton Raleigh—were starved of cash. Will the Minister meet with me to look at the criteria that Link has put in place around the post office’s suitability to see if we can get that overturned?

[Rachel Blake]

I would absolutely be happy to meet with the hon. Member to talk about that issue. I hope to meet with Members from across the House about the access to banking services review.

[Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to her place.

My constituency was one of the lucky ones that was awarded a banking hub two years ago, and I worked with Cash Access UK to secure a temporary place in the council library. Two years on, it has failed to secure an accessible permanent site and is refusing to engage with me. Will the review also look into the delivery of commitments by Cash Access UK?

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution, and I hope that we can discuss it during the review.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I have had the pleasure of opening two banking hubs, in Rossington and in Thorne, and have seen the success that they have brought to the area. However, I also have the Isle of Axholme—a rural area—in my constituency, and access to cash is really important for financial inclusion, local businesses, and the resilience of our rural communities. Will the review take that into account?

[Rachel Blake]

My hon. Friend makes important points about access to banking services across a number of different areas. I am grateful to him, and I hope we can continue to discuss this issue.

We now have very little time left—

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

On that point, will the Minister give way? [Laughter.]

[Rachel Blake]

I will.

[Dave Doogan]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could she give my constituents some comfort that after the review—I am certain it will find that the current criteria set out for Link by the FCA are deeply flawed and exist in a random, abstract form that bears no resemblance to local people’s circumstances—places such as Pitlochry will be able to revisit Link and the FCA’s flawed decisions?

[Rachel Blake]

I disagree—I think that the hon. Gentleman goes too far in his criticism of the criteria. It is important that the Government continue to monitor how these banking hubs are assessed and the need for them.

I will close by talking about—

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Blake]

I am going to make a little bit of progress now, because we do not have much time. Despite the important progress that we have heard this evening about the number of banking hubs that have been set up—a commitment to 275 with 235 already delivered—it would be premature to conclude that all people and communities are receiving support with their banking needs. Decisions to close bank branches are ultimately commercial decisions taken by banks and building societies, and reflect some of the changes in the way people choose to bank.

[Suella Braverman]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Blake]

I have to finish now. I welcome the commitments that firms have made to maintain or improve their existing branches, recognising just how important they are to their customers. There are already some rules and obligations for firms that are changing their branch networks, which they must take very seriously. All Members should know that those decisions must be taken with regard to the impact on customers and communities. I underline that banks and building societies are expected to put appropriate alternatives in place ahead of closure, and where they fall short of those expectations, the FCA can and will ask for closures to be paused.

[Suella Braverman]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake]

I am not going to give way. I fully support those powers, and expect the FCA to use them where necessary. However, the Government are concerned that although firms have been reshaping their branch networks in response to customer demand, this may be creating particular challenges, which is why we have brought forward the review.

The Government recognise how important it is that communities such as those represented by the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey and many other Members from all parts of the country have sufficient access to cash and banking services. Banks and building societies are a core part of the everyday economy. It is critical that communities have sufficient access to those important services. I am sure that many Members from across the House agree with that, and I look forward to working with them on the access to banking services review.

Question put and agreed to.

Review of the Ringfencing Regime

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)]

At Mansion House 2025, as part of the financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed her intention to uphold the ringfencing regime to safeguard financial stability and depositors while taking forward meaningful reform to update the regime and support the Government’s growth agenda. In response, His Majesty’s Treasury has, in close collaboration with the Bank of England, undertaken a review of the regime.

The review has now concluded, and its findings can be found in the review report “Safeguarding Stability, Enabling Growth”, published on gov.uk. The Government will take forward reforms to the regime to enable the ringfenced banks to provide more productive funding to UK business and the real economy, supporting the Government mission to deliver sustainable economic growth.

The ringfencing regime will continue to uphold the financial independence of ringfenced banks and protect retail depositors from volatility in global financial markets.

The Government will take forward reforms in five key areas:

Creating a more agile and proportionate ringfencing framework

As part of the upcoming financial services and markets Bill announced in the King’s Speech, the Government will take forward primary legislation to:

Address unnecessary duplication, by enabling the Prudential Regulation Authority to remove ringfencing rules where the objectives of ringfencing are already met by other prudential requirements or the resolution regime.

Enhance regulatory flexibility, through removing elements of primary legislation that are overly prescriptive.

Deliver better regulatory alignment by ensuring the PRA’s approach to making ringfencing rules reflects developments in the resolution regime for banks.

Enable HM Treasury to move aspects of the regime out of legislation and into PRA rules, so they can be updated in a more agile and proportionate way, and creating greater scope for the PRA to use modifications and waivers.

Allowing ringfenced banks to provide more products and services to support the UK economy

Subject to consultation on the detail this summer, the Government will:

Introduce a new growth allowance, supporting the financing needs of the real economy by permitting ringfenced banks to undertake activities otherwise prohibited by the regime. The Government will consult on an allowance worth up to 10% of their pillar 1 risk-weighted assets for credit risk, which could be used to unlock up to £80 billion of financing for UK businesses.

Allow ringfenced bodies to offer a more comprehensive range of hedging products to businesses, supporting investment by ensuring they can more effectively manage their risks as they grow.

Ensure RFBs can fully support Government priorities through the British Business Bank and National Wealth Fund by enabling participation in funding schemes that are guaranteed or offered by UK public financial institutions.

Permit exposures to a wider range of financial institutions where those firms undertake activities that the ringfencing regime would permit the RFB to undertake directly.

Addressing inefficiencies in how ringfencing is applied to banking groups

The PRA and Financial Policy Committee will review how ringfencing interacts with certain capital requirements, including how the Basel 3.1 output floor and the leverage ratio is applied to banks in the regime.

The Bank of England will review its calibration of the internal minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities scalar to ensure the appropriate amount of loss-absorbing capacity is pre-positioned at the RFB.

Sharing resources and services more flexibly across the ringfence to reduce or remove operational burdens

The PRA has today announced that it will consult on allowing firms more flexibility as to how they share operational resources across the ringfence.

The Government will consult on legislation to enable surpluses in closed RFB pension schemes to be shared with other schemes in a wider banking group, subject to certain conditions, enabling flexibility in how surplus funds are used.

Maintaining proportionality

The £35 billion primary threshold will be subject to review every three years, with a view to uprating it in line with changes to the market and deposit base.

The PRA will review ringfencing-specific reporting requirements as part of its regular review of its ringfencing rules, reporting in 2028, to ensure they are proportionate once the revised regime is in place.

The review is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-stability-enabling-growth-the-ring-fencing-review

[HCWS27]

Consumer Credit Act 1974: Reform

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Rachel Blake)]

2024 marked the 50th anniversary of the passage of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The world, the way people interact with their finances, and the consumer credit market are dramatically different today and the transformation in 50 years has been vast—79% of the public now hold at least one regulated credit product, new products such as “buy now, pay later” have come to the market, and digital technology has transformed how people use and take out credit.

https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/financial-lives/fls-2024-credit-loans.pdf

It is perhaps not surprising that the legislation has not kept up. While it was well designed for its time, the CCA is increasingly under strain to deliver for the way consumers and firms now use and provide credit. The existing legislation and supporting regulations are poorly adapted to technology that was not envisaged 50 years ago. Successive updates over time have created a complex and prescriptive regime. In 2014 work was commenced to modernise the regime, with many CCA provisions being repealed and recast into Financial Conduct Authority rules in the consumer credit sourcebook, and the Government are continuing this work.

The Government have identified opportunities to deliver a modernised consumer credit regime that aims to ensure that consumers receive clearer information at the right time, utilising technological developments, enabling them to make informed financial decisions throughout the consumer journey, as well as simplified rights and protections that achieve proportionate regulation while achieving robust consumer protection.

Modernising the CCA aims to achieve a more agile, flexible and proportionate regulatory regime that better supports innovation and economic growth alongside robust protection for consumers. This will enable firms to better tailor products and consumer journeys to achieve good consumer outcomes, in line with the broader FCA consumer duty principle. It also brings consumer credit in line with the modern UK model of financial services regulation, whereby the scope of regulation is determined by Parliament, with the detailed conduct rules set by the regulator.

The policy statement published today outlines the Government’s approach to reform of the CCA, which will be delivered via the forthcoming financial services and markets Bill. The FCA is also publishing a statement on its direction regarding CCA reform measures announced today.

The policy statement is available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-consumer-credit-act-1974-cca-reform

[HCWS28]

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are backing Grangemouth and have put money into the Acorn carbon capture and storage project. We are taking £150 off people’s energy bills in Scotland. In England and Wales, NHS waiting lists are falling. I wonder why they are still increasing in Scotland.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Short-term lets—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Dave Doogan, what is it about you always wanting to shout at the wrong time? Please be quiet.

[Rachel Blake]

Short-term lets account for up to 20% of homes in parts of my constituency. Not only are they eroding communities, but I am concerned that their owners are not fully paying their tax. What steps will the Chancellor take to address the fact that data from Airbnb suggests that as many as 6,000 homes are being let on short-term lets, but vanishingly few are registered to pay business rates? Will she meet me to discuss this issue, and how we can recover the tax, which could be up to hundreds of millions of pounds—

[Mr Speaker]

Minister, “Yes” will do.

OBR: Resignation of Chair

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The Chancellor has delivered a Budget that takes the challenges of this country head on, cuts the cost of living, continues to cut NHS waiting lists, cuts Government borrowing, and meets the priorities of the British people.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

The OBR’s investigation has two particularly striking findings: the first was the number of attempts to access the documents in question; and the second was the lack of security for those documents. What specific actions does the Minister believe the OBR should take to overcome those things at future fiscal events? Does he agree it is possible to have confidence in the principle of an independent OBR alongside undertaking meaningful and significant scrutiny of some of the organisation’s actions?

[James Murray]

I very much agree with the sentiment of my hon. Friend’s question. The OBR is a vital part of our fiscal framework—indeed, as I mentioned earlier, one of the first acts we took on entering government was to strengthen its role to ensure that it could never be sidelined. It is precisely because we see the OBR as holding such an important place in our fiscal framework that it is important that we maintain its integrity and trust.

My hon. Friend asks what further steps the OBR will take. We will work with the National Cyber Security Centre and the OBR to take forward the recommendation that a forensic examination of potential premature access at previous fiscal events is carried out. Let me add that there is no evidence of hostile cyber-activity, but the OBR report’s findings indicated access at previous fiscal events. That is a very serious matter that we will investigate.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kit Malthouse]

I will in a minute. The third point I want to make, which I guess is the one that might appeal most to Government Members, is that this tax is generationally unfair. Younger people move house more often, so they are more exposed to this tax. The younger someone is, the more likely they are to be building a family, to require more space, and to be moving up the ladder. Older people tend to sit still. They sit pretty on their capital, which is often in unmortgaged houses. Because of the lack of a market, they generally under-occupy the houses they own. When looking at stamp duty, we have to look at generational fairness, too.

In my constituency, hundreds and hundreds of aspirational families need more space. They would like to move up the ladder. They have worked hard and accumulated a deposit and the money that would allow them to move, but they want to spend that money on curtains, carpets, decoration and all the rest of it. They are deterred from moving by this tax. If we are to be fair to the next generation, we have to not only build the houses that they want to buy, but make it cheap for them to buy them, and that means cancelling stamp duty.

For all those reasons—to ensure fluidity and liquidity in a market that is skewed to produce artificially high prices; to ensure a market in which developers take a risk and build more houses, and landowners put land forward; but fundamentally for a generation who are being denied access to housing—we need to take seriously the idea that stamp duty is at the heart of the problem, and we need to abolish it entirely. The Liberal Democrats say that abolishing it will raise prices. It of course raises prices if we tell people that there is a window. That would result in frantic activity from those who are desperate to buy. If the abolition becomes permanent, we get a liquid market that achieves a real price, notwithstanding the initial bump.

As for those who say that the savings cannot be found, we should be able to find this amount of money, given the size of the Government’s budget, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) said. I had a look this morning, and I could find 50% of the amount in the Department for Transport’s budget, no problem. The other half could come from the welfare reforms on which the Labour party bottled it. We could easily find the money and do the whole country and the economy an enormous favour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to speak in the debate. In a spirit of cross-party unity, I congratulate His Majesty’s Opposition on their valiant and brave attempts to dress up a political tax cut as a meaningful intervention in the housing market. I have been looking at every single Conservative Member who has spoken and thinking about whether they really believe that such a tax cut would actually make a difference.

[Bradley Thomas]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rachel Blake]

I would like to develop my argument a little bit further, and then I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member. I read the Opposition’s proposals with interest, and have been looking to see exactly how they intend to fund their proposed tax cut. I am struck by the fact that the Conservatives want to bring forward even more unfunded proposals. They are not satisfied with their devastation of public services after their attempts at austerity; with crashing the economy, driving up mortgage costs and rents, and driving down the supply of new homes and overall rates of home ownership; or with their botched Brexit deal, which, through its impact on the economy, has wrecked many people’s chance to buy a home. No, they propose yet more ill-thought-through tax cuts.

In the likely event that the Opposition’s ill-thought-through proposals for funding this tax cut are undeliverable, I wonder whether they would cut £14 billion from Labour’s £39 billion investment in genuinely affordable homes. Would they cut £14 billion from the £23 billion that the Government invested in the National Wealth Fund to get our economy going? Would they take money out of our £3.8 billion homelessness fund? The truth is that the Conservative Government’s interventions in the housing market resulted in temporary accommodation use, rough sleeping, mortgage rates and rents going up, and home ownership going down. The Tories pretend to be the party of home ownership, but it is Labour that is absolutely determined to get homes built. It is Labour that is coming forward with proposals to get homes built, and Labour, I believe, that will deliver on that.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does the hon. Member accept that over the last 30 years, the four years with the highest levels of new housing delivery occurred since 2018, under Conservative Governments? She is trying to make the point that stamp duty abolition is a tax cut dressed up as an intervention in the housing market. What on earth is wrong with giving a tax cut to aspirational people who work hard and want to move up the housing ladder?

[Rachel Blake]

For the last two hours, the proposal has been presented by Opposition Members as a meaningful housing market intervention because of their supposed commitment to aspiration. The Labour party has always been the party of aspiration, and it has been the driving force behind social mobility throughout the last century. [Interruption.] Conservative Members know that, and that is why they are chuntering so much.

[Rachel Gilmour]

I wanted to speak earlier on social mobility, which the hon. Lady mentioned. If anybody wants to see what happens to social mobility under the Conservatives, all they need do is come to Minehead in my constituency, which is ranked 324th out of 324 for social mobility in the entire country, having had a Conservative Member of Parliament for 23 years who did nothing.

[Rachel Blake]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, which speaks for itself.

There is a stark contrast with what the Labour Government are doing, and their meaningful interventions in the housing market. The Renters Rights Act 2025, which has received Royal Assent, is stabilising life for renters, making sure that they no longer live in fear of no-fault evictions. We have also defeated a judicial review against vested interests and freeholders, so that we can move forward with our leasehold proposals. Those are both significant interventions that the Opposition failed to deliver after 14 years, five of which they spent trying to deliver reform for renters and leaseholders that would have meaningfully stabilised the housing market. We have not heard anything about all the people stuck in their homes because of the last Government’s complete failure to tackle the cladding crisis or leasehold. We have just had political dressing-up of an unfunded proposed tax cut.

The other thing that the Labour Government have done is made sure that we are stabilising the economy. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) told us, people who want to save up to join the housing market need a stable economy. We have seen interest rates come down five times, which we think is saving mortgage payers about £100 a month. They are better off because of the stability that our Chancellor and this Labour Government are beginning to deliver.

[Gregory Stafford]

The hon. Lady is being generous with interventions; I thank her for that. To bring her back to stamp duty land tax, the average house price in her constituency is over £1 million. [Interruption.] I have not quite finished. Her constituents are the precise people who would benefit from this saving. Does she not think that they would welcome the abolition of this tax?

[Rachel Blake]

I am interested in how much the hon. Member knows about my constituency. He may know that nearly half of my constituents are private renters, and only about 15% can afford to own their own home in my constituency because of the record failures of the previous Government to do something about the cladding crisis, the supply of new genuinely affordable homes and the delivery of low-cost home ownership, which would have really made a difference. Rather than the Conservatives’ ill-thought-through proposals, Westminster city council under its Labour leadership is able to deliver more genuinely affordable homes, and this Labour Government are taking the challenge seriously.

We have seen His Majesty’s Opposition make a valiant attempt to dress up a politically motivated tax cut as a meaningful housing intervention. Serious thinking, this is not. I am pleased that the House will vote against their ill-thought-through proposal and that we will carry on with delivering meaningful intervention in the housing market and making sure that our publicly funded services are stable into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

I thank my colleagues for their enthusiasm. It is a great pleasure to contribute to this really important debate. So many people—particularly young people—are desperate to get their foot on the housing ladder, but they feel—

[Rachel Blake]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rebecca Paul]

I gently say to the hon. Member that I have not really got into the flow of my speech yet, either. I will finish the first sentence before I take any interventions. People feel that that vital first rung is utterly out of their reach.

I remember when I bought my first property. It was the most amazing feeling in the world when I first walked through that door, with those keys. It was really hard to earn enough to secure the mortgage that I needed and to save up the money for the stamp duty and the deposit. I managed to do it, but I would have been able to do it sooner without that stamp duty cost. That is why I am delighted that the Conservatives have come forward with a clear, coherent and aspirational plan to abolish stamp duty land tax on the purchase of primary residences and to open up the dream of home ownership to the next generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

This debate captures the key difference between Conservatives and the Labour party, because we on the Conservative Benches believe in people. We believe in their talent, their drive, their hopes and their aspirations. By contrast, the Labour party likes to box people in, to restrict, to regulate and to let the state determine every aspect of their lives. We on this side of the House believe in setting people free to work hard, to achieve and to build their own future. Let us unleash the power of individual freedom. Let us unleash the energy of the maker and of enterprise. Above all, let us unleash the unstoppable force of aspiration across every part of the UK. The word “aspiration” runs through the very DNA of the Conservative party. It is who we are, from delivering educational reforms and promoting social mobility to delivering a property-owning democracy.

[Rachel Blake]

I would be grateful if the hon. Member would expand on how that driving value of aspiration came into the Conservative Government when they were completely failing to address the urgent need for leasehold reform over the past five years, when so many people have been suffering and unable to sell their leasehold homes because of the cladding on those homes. Where was the aspiration then?

[Mr Bedford]

I will give the hon. Member an example of Conservative aspiration. My family never owned their own homes—my grandparents did not own their own home—but Margaret Thatcher gave them the opportunity to do so. She gave many people like my grandparents the opportunity to aspire, to achieve and to own their own homes. That is the aspiration we need to get back to as a country. Every generation of Conservatives has understood this ambition. It is not our background that shapes our future. This is equality of opportunity in action, not the equality of outcome that the Labour party desire so much.

We cannot talk about aspiration without celebrating the Prime Minister who understood it best. Mrs Thatcher gave people the freedom to own their own future. She rewarded hard work through lower taxes, turned millions of people into shareholders through privatisation and made dreams of home ownership a reality for many across the country with her right-to-buy scheme. Mrs Thatcher just got it; she understood human nature. She understood that people are ambitious and she knew that when we trust individuals and not the state, Britain succeeds.