Emma Reynolds
MP for Wycombe · Labour · United Kingdom
“My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his area. As he said, the Prime Minister has been engaging with Cornwall—including, importantly, with its six MPs, including my hon. Friend—on a devolution agreement.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman, in whose footsteps I am again following by taking on another job that he did in government. As a former Environment Secretary, living in a rural area of Buckinghamshire myself and representing a semi-rural seat, I reassure him that this Government of course care about driving growth in rural areas.”
“I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Driving public sector productivity is extremely important in two ways: first, because we get better value for money for taxpayers for the tax that people are putting in, including taxpayers in our own constituencies; and secondly, as she says, we are driving efficiencies, faster service delivery…”
“Public sector productivity is improving, with the NHS delivering 3.5% productivity growth in 2025-26, beating its 2% target. The Government will continue to drive public sector efficiency so that taxpayers’ money delivers the best possible public services.”
“My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency. The Cabinet statement on devolution set out the Government’s ambitions to accelerate devolution across the country by establishing a strategic authority for every area in England that wants one by the end of 2028.”
“The Government will support good growth in every postcode, including in Cornwall and Gloucester. We have already established No. 10 North to work in partnership with local leaders, businesses and communities, and at the Budget next month we will publish plans for further fiscal devolution, including greater retention of business rates rev…”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Emma Reynolds, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 8 of 12.
“There is also a dedicated HMRC digital service to allow members receiving an RPSS to understand their tax position. There are processes in place to allow members to pay additional tax or, as will be the case for the majority of members, to claim either a tax refund or compensation from the scheme where a refund is not possible. Providing these statements to members, together with the other aspects of implementing the remedy, is the responsibility, as the hon. Lady will know, of pension scheme managers. For the largest public service schemes, including the NHS scheme in England and Wales, the teachers’ scheme in England and Wales, and the civil service scheme across the UK, the scheme manager is the relevant Secretary of State.”
“There are many different elements to it, but the most crucial is that all those affected must be provided with individualised information about their pension entitlements during the 2015 to 2022 remedy period, through what is known as a remediable service statement or RSS. In addition, a smaller group of members, whose tax position during the remedy period may have changed, need to be provided with a remediable pension savings statement—an RPSS. Given the complexity of the McCloud remedy, schemes are also providing significant levels of guidance and online resources to help members understand the information they receive and the decision they need to make. That information is often very complex, as hon. Members know because many have been in the position of receiving it.”
“However, addressing the discrimination that occurred between 2014 and 2022 is considerably more complex, as hon. Members will appreciate, because whether individual members are better off under the older legacy schemes or newer reform schemes will depend on their individual employment histories and circumstances, and in some cases will not be certain until they retire. The remedy therefore gives a choice over legacy or reform scheme benefits, which is given at the point of retirement for active and deferred members, and is in the process of being rolled out for members who have already retired. Delivering the remedy to more than 3 million affected scheme members is also an intensive administrative challenge.”
“Lady said, arises out of the introduction of new pension schemes for public sector workers in 2014-15. When introducing those pension schemes, the Government at the time gave what is called a transitional protection to older workers, but as she set out, in 2018 the Court of Appeal found that those protections gave rise to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of age, race and sex. In 2019, the Government announced that they would address that discrimination through the McCloud remedy. There are two main elements to the remedy. The ongoing difference in treatment between older and younger workers was removed by closing the older pre-2015 pension schemes and moving all active members into the new pension schemes in relation to employment after 31 March 2022.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) on securing this debate. I am grateful for her speech, and agree that the people we are talking about keep us safe and well, and show true dedication to public service. I absolutely understand the point that she is making. I will talk a little bit about the background to McCloud, before talking about the progress that has been made to date and what further steps the scheme managers still need to take, as the hon. Lady outlined. The McCloud remedy is, by its nature, a complex undertaking, as I am sure she will appreciate. It applies to 20 public service pension schemes in the UK, and the scheme managers for those schemes are responsible for ensuring that the remedy is administered properly and in accordance with their statutory provisions. This issue, as the hon.”
“Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of access to cash and banking services in rural areas.”
“Friends the Members for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) and for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing banking hubs in their constituencies— in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, two banking hubs are soon to open, as I understand it. Other Members spoke about their campaigns to secure banking hubs, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin)—who is apparently expecting a call from one such bank— and the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking). My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) and the hon.”
“It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I want to thank and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on bringing forward this important debate, which was heavily subscribed across the House. He highlighted the needs of his constituents, particularly the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled. My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt), and the hon. Members for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) all stressed the importance of in-person services, particularly for vulnerable constituents. I congratulate my hon.”
“I know that this is not necessarily the conclusion to the speech that Members were hoping for, but we think it is important that local communities have access to cash and banking services, which is why our Government are committed to rolling out 350 banking hubs across the country.”
“The Government are not minded to review the legislation passed by the previous Government. A number of Members—including the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who mentioned this to me yesterday as well—talked about ATMs’ lack of reliability. I have done a little bit of work on that, and Link assures me that it takes a hard line with its members over the functionality of ATMs. However, I urge Members to raise these issues with me, so that I can raise them with Link. I am soon to meet John Howells, the chief executive of Link, and I will feed back the concerns that Members have raised today about how Link applies its criteria.”
“The Government recognise that the ability to access cash and in-person banking support remains essential for many, particularly in rural areas and for vulnerable people, which is why we have secured the industry’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament, ensuring that access to face-to-face banking is protected. Over 220 have been agreed, and more than 160 are open. Banking hubs are a voluntary initiative by banks as part of meeting their access to cash obligations, as legislated for in FSMA. Many Members have asked the Government to demand that Link reviews its assessment procedure, but it is worth reminding colleagues that the process for deciding where hubs are needed is independently determined by Link, the operator of the UK’s largest ATM network.”
“I do not have very long left, I am afraid. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare rightly stressed the importance of these services in urban areas as well. I will not go through all of them, but we heard lots of really good speeches on both sides of the House and a surprising degree of consensus, which is not always the case. It is interesting to see the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington so closely aligned, which is not something I expected. Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, the last Government legislated to protect reasonable access to cash, giving the Financial Conduct Authority new powers to ensure that communities could both withdraw and deposit cash.”
“The reforms will increase transparency, ensuring that customers understand providers’ decisions and have the time and information they need to bring a complaint or find an alternative provider. I thank the Committee for its attention and welcome any questions from the shadow Minister or other Members.”
“Providers would also be required to advise customers on how they can make a complaint to their provider and on any right they may have to take their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The SI clarifies ambiguities in existing legislation to ensure that the new rules are applied consistently. There are some exceptions to the new requirements in the SI, as Members will see, mainly so that providers can continue to meet their other legal requirements. The strengthened rules would take effect from 28 April 2026 and apply to the termination of payment services contracts that are concluded for an indefinite period and entered into on or after that date. The regulations would make crucial changes that would ensure that customers are treated fairly while respecting providers’ rights to make commercial decisions.”
“Currently, payments legislation contains no obligation on providers to explain why they are terminating services, and the existing two-month notice period is not always long enough, meaning that customers do not have the information and time they need to understand providers’ decisions, rectify issues or make a complaint. The statutory instrument before us today addresses those issues. It would increase the amount of notice that providers must give to at least 90 days and introduce a new requirement that customers be given an explanation that is sufficiently detailed and specific for them to understand why the contract for their payment service is being terminated.”
“Concerns have been raised in that area over recent years, including concerns about services being terminated on the basis of customers’ lawful beliefs and political opinions. The Government are unequivocal that customers should not see payment services terminated on grounds relating to their lawful freedom of expression. There are clear protections in law that already prohibit providers from discriminating against UK consumers based on protected characteristics and their lawful beliefs and political opinions. However, in other areas, existing legislation does not always provide appropriate protection and is not sufficiently clear.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful for the Committee’s time this afternoon. Financial services fulfil a vital role for people and businesses across the UK. The Government are committed to ensuring high standards of both consumer protection and financial inclusion. The regulations form part of that commitment by strengthening protections for customers, including individual consumers, businesses and charities, when their bank accounts or other payment services are terminated by their provider. While terminations of services are generally considered commercial decisions, customers must be treated fairly.”
“In our financial inclusion strategy, we are looking at access to banking and the relationship between financial exclusion and digital exclusion. We are doing broader work in this area to understand not only the root causes from providers but why individuals have perhaps had their accounts closed and not sought alternative provision. We are doing broader work on financial provision, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we will produce a strategy by the end of the year on this vital issue. I know that many of my hon. Friends will welcome that, as well as other Members across the House, because financial inclusion is something that we all care about and this Government are very committed to. I believe that I have answered all the questions.”
“The balance that we are striking in this statutory instrument is on the one hand enhanced consumer protection and on the other hand ensuring that we do not place unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on banks and other providers—it is not just about banks; it is about other payment providers, too. We have not included a statutory review clause, but that does not mean that we cannot review the legislation. We do not judge that this provision will make banks more reluctant to open bank accounts for people in the first place. The shadow Minister asked more broadly about access to banking services, which is something that we are monitoring. As he said, that is crucial to both the operation of a business and customers.”
“We consider, as did the previous incumbents in my role and the Conservatives in government, that the current notice period of 60 days is simply not adequate for customers who have their accounts closed to either make a complaint or seek an alternative provision, and that is bad for individual customers, but particularly bad for businesses. As he set out, it is crucial that businesses and individual customers have access to bank accounts. We do not think, although I can write to him with more evidence, that this measure will make banks more reluctant to open bank accounts in the first place.”
“It started so well—I am slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman. On one hand he says it is as though nothing changed, and did we need a general election to get to this point? On the other hand he calls into question the provisions of the SI and what impact they might have. I will come to his questions in turn. First, there has been a big change since the election. I was not here in the last Parliament, so there has been a welcome change from my point of view and on the Labour side of the House, where we have a quite hefty majority, in case he had not noticed. The reforms were consulted on and thought about in the last Government—the hon. Gentleman was right to make that point.”
“I thank the shadow Minister for that question. As he will know, changes were brought into force in January 2024 under the previous Government that ensured that domestic PEPs, as they are called, were not deemed to be on the same level of risk as non-domestic PEPs. That SI was introduced under the last Government and FSMA—the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023—committed to bringing forward that legislation. It also committed the FCA to doing a review of so-called PEPs and debanking. That review concluded that banks were not necessarily taking the wrong approach, but it said that there needs to be more proportionate application of rules. Therefore, the FCA will bring forward updated guidance on this issue, and I am happy to write to the shadow Minister in more detail on the timing of that and what will be included.”
“Lifetime mortgages have been regulated by the FCA since 2004. Those rules provide robust consumer protections, including requiring lenders to engage and provide tailored support to all their customers.”
“I am really sorry to hear about the circumstances that my hon. Friend’s constituent is facing, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss the issue further. Lifetime mortgages are complex financial products, and I suggest that anyone considering equity release seeks independent financial advice to help ensure those products are suitable for their needs.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I discuss mortgages with lenders and, indeed, with the Financial Conduct Authority on a weekly basis, and I will ensure that I pass on his comments.”
“We are in weekly touch with the Financial Conduct Authority, which regulates mortgages, and under this Government we have seen four interest rate cuts since the election, which is bringing mortgage rates down for hard-working people across the country.”
“Our Government secured the commitment of the banking industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the country; 200 have already been agreed and over 150 are open. The financial inclusion committee, which I chair, is looking at financial inclusion, including digital banking and ensuring that people have the bank accounts they need.”
“As I said in my previous answer, we have secured the commitment of the industry to open 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. The FCA keeps the access to cash rules under review. As legislated for under the last Government, it has the power to make rules to ensure that there is access to cash across the country.”
“As we announced in the spring statement, we are looking for options for ISA reform to ensure that we get the balance right between cash and equities. I can reassure my hon. Friend that we understand that cash savings are a vital tool for people and act as a financial buffer for a rainy day.”
“They will provide certainty for pension funds and will remove the need for the Government to renew the exemption every two years via secondary legislation. They will support pension funds’ ability to generate returns, which fund the retirement benefits of future pensioners, and align with the Government’s objectives to unlock productive investment to support economic growth. I hope that the Committee feels able to support the draft regulations and their objectives; I commend them to the Committee.”
“The draft regulations will implement that policy decision by removing the time limit on the exemption, preventing it from expiring on 18 June this year, as is currently scheduled. They will also remove the Treasury’s power to extend the exemption by two years at a time if it concludes that that is necessary; as the exemption will have no time limit, that power will obviously no longer be required. Firms will not have to do anything differently as a result of the draft regulations, because they will maintain the status quo. This approach provides longer-term clarity and certainty for market participants on the policy position, which will support planning for their long-term investment strategies. The regulations will maintain this important exemption for the longer term.”
“Overall, the Government concluded that there was clear evidence that removing the exemption would reduce pension funds’ ability to invest in productive assets, and that that could have an adverse effect on the retirement benefits of future pensioners, while the extent to which removing the exemption would generate direct financial stability benefits was very unclear. The Government have decided that, on balance, it is appropriate to maintain the exemption for the longer term. However, we will keep the policy under review, in co-ordination with the financial services regulators. If there are changes to market dynamics or wider Government reforms that have a material impact on the value of mandatory clearing for pension funds, the Government may reassess the issue.”
“The review also found strong evidence that pension funds would need to hold more cash and reduce investment in more productive assets if the exemption were removed. That could reduce their returns, with a potential impact on the retirement benefits of future pensioners; it would also be inconsistent with the objectives of the Government’s wider growth reforms, including the pensions investment review, which seeks to unlock new productive investment by pension funds in things like businesses and infrastructure to support economic growth.”
“The Treasury has since conducted a review of the exemption, working closely with UK financial services regulators and with input gathered from industry stakeholders through a call for evidence, which was launched in November 2023. The review found that requiring pension funds to clear derivatives could bring financial stability benefits, such as reducing counterparty risk, and could enhance resilience to shocks by increasing pension funds’ cash buffers. However, it identified concerns from some market participants that removing the exemption could increase pressure on the liquidity management of pension funds, particularly under stressed market conditions, which could increase risks to financial stability.”
“The UK assimilated the clearing obligation and the exemption into UK domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which was passed under the previous Government. The exemption was initially designed as a temporary measure, but it has since been extended several times. At present, the Government need to lay secondary legislation every two years if they conclude that it is necessary to extend the exemption. The most recent extension was in June 2023, under the previous Government, who noted that “it would be desirable to put in place a longer-term policy approach and remove the need for future temporary extensions”. That is what the draft regulations seek to achieve.”
“At the time, it was decided that pension funds should be exempted from the obligation because of the particular challenges that pension funds would face in meeting CCP margin requirements. CCPs require certain types of margin to be posted in cash. Pension funds do not usually hold large cash reserves, as they invest a large majority of their resources in assets such as gilts and corporate bonds to provide returns for pension holders, meaning that meeting the requirement to post margin in cash can be more difficult for pension funds than for other firms. Requiring pension funds to clear their derivatives could cause them to increase their cash holdings, reducing their investment in other assets and their ability to generate returns for future pensioners over the longer term.”
“Central counterparties are a type of financial market infrastructure that firms use to reduce risks when trading on financial markets. They sit between the buyers and sellers of financial instruments, providing assurance that contractual obligations will be fulfilled. They do so by collecting collateral, known as margin, from all their users, which can be used to cover any shortfall if a default occurs. The process of transacting through a CCP is known as clearing. In 2009, G20 countries agreed that certain standard derivatives contracts should be cleared through CCPs to reduce risks in the financial system. In the EU, this was implemented through legislation and is known as the clearing obligation.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. The draft regulations will remove the time limit on the temporary exemption that pension funds have from clearing over-the-counter derivatives contracts, such as interest rate swaps, through a central counterparty. The exemption will continue indefinitely, ending the need for the Government to renew it every two years if they conclude that it is necessary. The draft regulations will help UK pensioners by supporting pension funds’ ability to invest in assets that generate returns for their benefit. Maintaining the exemption is also in line with the Government’s priorities to increase productive investment by pension funds to support economic growth.”
“Maintaining the exemption over time will give certainty to those in the industry, so that they can invest, over the longer term, in assets that will produce returns for their members and therefore pay out the defined-benefit pensions that they are contractually obliged to provide for their members. I hope that I have answered all the Committee’s questions. Question put and agreed to.”
“Our pension systems and the UK defined-benefit market are structurally different from those in other jurisdictions such as the US and the European Union, so we think it entirely appropriate to take a different decision on this issue. The Government are committed to maintaining our high standards of regulation and financial services, including adhering to relevant international standards where appropriate, but we do not think that this will create a divergence that is worrying in any way. I completely concur with the hon. Member for St Albans that the focus should be on pension outcomes.”
“I thank both hon. Members. As I expected, the shadow Minister agrees with the policy of the previous Government. He asked a couple of questions, and I will take them in the wrong order. The shadow Minister is right that there is a very slight difference between ruling clearing out completely and making the exemption permanent, but the outcome, which is what we are focusing on, is exactly the same. We have said that we will keep the policy under review if we need to, but overall we think that a permanent exemption gives the industry a lot more certainty than having to roll the exemption over every couple of years. I hope that that gives him some comfort. In a way, the shadow Minister has answered his own question on divergence from the EU.”
“It is excellent to see the trade associations coming together, working from the different perspectives of the defence sector and finance, to produce that guidance.”
“Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry was present at that meeting, as were representatives of the defence sector and a number of trade associations representing the City and financial services. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer brings to this House a great wealth of experience in financial services, from both a firm and a regulatory perspective, so he will know that decisions regarding the provision of financial services to businesses are a commercial matter; banks and insurers need to make an assessment of the relevant risks and conduct appropriate due diligence. However, we are very clear that no company should be denied access to financial services purely on the basis that it works in defence. I encourage all defence firms to read the very helpful guidance published by UK Finance and ADA Group.”
“I cannot comment in detail on those discussions at this time, but we will continue to work together with our European allies on this incredibly important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about some of the spillover effects, and I assure him that the Treasury and the MOD are keen to maximise spillovers and synergies between the civil and military sectors for both economic growth and military reasons. We are considering how to maximise these benefits as we develop the defence industrial strategy. My hon. Friend mentioned a number of issues to do with defence companies’ access to finance, and I welcome the recent meeting he held with our hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) at Guildhall in the City. I know that my right hon.”
“We recognise the issues that my hon. Friend raised today. We are looking carefully at the proposals and actively discussing with our allies a range of multilateral options. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate mentioned the EU, and I should say that we are looking forward to the UK-EU leaders’ summit on 19 May. We welcome the EU’s efforts to bolster Europe’s defence, including the ambitions set out in the ReArm Europe package and the defence White Paper. We have been clear that we are keen to work with EU allies on common challenges to our shared security. The Chancellor discussed this with counterparts at the G20 in February, and we are discussing the shared challenges with our European partners.”
“That included the creation of a new organisation, UK Defence Innovation, with the explicit aim of supporting the scale-up of SMEs, start-ups and non-traditional defence suppliers, enabling them to grow and thrive, fostering an innovative defence tech ecosystem and crowding in private capital. As has been discussed in this excellent debate, we have been made aware of a number of financing issues in the defence sector, and I will come on to them shortly. I will first respond to the final part of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, on the proposals for a multilateral defence bank. I thank him for drawing our attention to these proposals, and I thank Rob Murray, the founder of the multilateral Defence, Security and Resilience bank, who has been liaising with the Government and championing this proposal.”
“National security is the first duty of the Government, as highlighted in our plan for change. We have demonstrated our commitment in recent announcements, such as the Prime Minister committing to reach defence spending of 2.5% of GDP from April 2027. As he said at Prime Minister’s questions today, the last time the UK reached that level of spending was under the last Labour Government. Our ambition is to reach 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, as economic and fiscal conditions allow. Given that uplift in defence spending and the challenging fiscal and economic context we find ourselves in, this Government want to ensure that the defence sector contributes to achieving our No. 1 mission of economic growth. The Chancellor reiterated that message at the spring statement, when she announced a package of defence and growth-focused measures.”
“Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), for their interventions. Today’s discussion and the fantastic speech from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer have highlighted the complexities and challenges we face in ensuring that our defence sector is robust enough to protect our national security and support our growth mission, which is the No. 1 mission of this Government. In recent years, the world has been reshaped by global geopolitical instability, including Russia’s aggression and its illegal invasion of Ukraine—a war on our continent—as well as increasing threats from malign actors. This, combined with the challenging economic and fiscal context, makes it essential that we address the barriers to finance in the defence sector, so I thank my hon. Friend again for securing this debate in Westminster Hall.”
“It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) on securing this debate. I also thank the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions. I am going to embarrass a few people now. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), who is one of my successors in a seat I represented between 2010 and 2019. It was great to hear about the success of Collins Aerospace, which is in that constituency. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) and for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), as well as the right hon.”
“I do not want to name particular companies, but I am happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman in detail after the debate. Aspersions have been cast against certain companies managing pension funds that are not absolutely accurate when it comes to ESG. A lot of things are piled under the ESG banner. We are very keen that opaque ESG ratings should not impede the attractiveness of the defence sector. I am running out of time. I believe that the Member who moved the motion replies?”