Lucy Rigby
MP for Northampton North · Labour · United Kingdom
“Border communities rely on strong transport links, and my hon. Friend is a strong advocate for the interests of his constituency and those in the surrounding area. The Government are delivering for people in all parts of the UK, including investments that will benefit those on both sides of the English-Welsh border.”
“Nothing was snuck out. A third runway at Heathrow means more than 60,000 good local jobs, and more than £40 billion for the British economy. The hon. Lady’s question rather highlights the Lib Dems’ curious approach to growth.”
“My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will speak for himself, but I am confident that his view is that growth extends far beyond the area that the hon. Gentleman referred to.”
“Effective transport links are vital to the prosperity and wellbeing of people across the country, including in our border communities. We have been working closely with the Welsh Government to deliver a plan for Welsh rail, and we continue to work with devolved Governments to ensure that border communities stay connected.”
“We have been clear that Heathrow expansion needs to benefit everyone, not just London. The Department for Transport has shown that expansion would deliver UK-wide support for trade, with 40% of the estimated GDP benefits from expansion being outside London and the south-east.”
“The Pride in Place programme provides £5.8 billion of support to 284 neighbourhoods right across the country, including five places in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which she does so much to advocate for. We will set out more details of further funding in the Budget.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Lucy Rigby, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“As I said, the Government have worked closely with devolved Governments in the design of the Bill and we will continue to do that. To conclude, the pro-growth legislation set out in the Gracious Speech will drive this country forwards. The Conservatives had 14 years to deliver their legacy, which left our economy weaker, left people poorer and, most of all, left our country smaller in stature. This Government are undoing that legacy and our pro-growth legislation will allow us to accelerate the change that the country deserves to see. Our approach of a productive, active, agile state will ensure that we generate growth and lift living standards for people right across this country, not just for a few people and postcodes, but everywhere, because we value the contribution of the whole of Britain.”
“This Government are backing our brilliant British businesses to trade globally, including through our new trade strategy that expands UK Export Finance’s capacity to £80 billion. This Government have secured new trade deals with India, South Korea, the EU and the US to back British businesses globally, delivering improved access to key markets and protecting British jobs.”
“I warmly congratulate Pete, Amanda and the wider team—and the goats—on their success. In inviting me to do so, my hon. Friend shows that he is indeed a true champion for the businesses in his constituency. The support that this Government are giving to businesses will enable more of our fantastic British companies to export globally and to emulate Cosy Direct’s success.”
“I believe the right hon. Member mentioned the British industrial competitiveness scheme. That is being expanded. He will also be aware of the British industry supercharger package, which provides additional price relief from April 2026 as well.”
“The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to pre-empt anything that may or may not be announced in the King’s Speech. What I will tell him, though, as he already knows, is that this Government are backing our financial services sector to the hilt to ensure that it continues to be the world-leading success that it is.”
“The Government are committed to making the aspiration of home ownership a reality for as many people as possible, and we recognise that the LISA is not working for everyone. That is exactly why we have launched a short consultation on the implementation of a new ISA product that will support more first-time buyers. [ Official Report , 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 4WC.] (Correction) That new product will include the Government bonus being paid at the point the individual makes a withdrawal for a home purchase, therefore removing the need for a withdrawal charge.”
“Defence Bonds (Proposals) Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) James MacCleary presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for the issuing of defence bonds, including for purchase by members of the public; and for connected purposes. Bill read the F irst time; to be read a S econd time on Friday 8 May , and to be printed (Bill 437).”
“This Labour Government are committed to enabling more people to realise the dream of home ownership. Mortgages have become more affordable under this Government, thanks to increased economic stability and six interest rate cuts. Bills Presented Newhaven West Beach (Public Access) Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) James MacCleary presented a Bill to provide for a right of public access on foot to Newhaven West Beach; to impose duties on the harbour authority in respect of that right, including requirements to open and maintain specified access routes; to provide for exemptions from those duties for reasons of safety or in connection with harbour operations; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 436).”
“We are shifting from a reactive model, picking up the pieces after harm occurs, to a disruption model that targets the infrastructure that criminals rely on, including the online advertising routes they use to reach victims. Through our fraud strategy, the Online Crime Centre, strong action on fraudulent advertising via the Online Safety Act, and further work through the online advertising taskforce, backed by a clear commitment to legislate if necessary, we are taking decisive action to protect the public and disrupt the criminals behind these crimes. I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire again for raising these important issues. I reiterate that the Government recognise the importance of car insurance to people’s lives and livelihoods, and we are determined to tackle the fraud that drives up costs for honest motorists.”
“We have also recently introduced new rules allowing banks to delay and investigate suspicious payments for up to 72 hours, which supports the interception of suspicious payments, giving firms more time to prevent funds from reaching fraudsters in complex cases and helping to break the spell that fraudsters have over victims. As we have set out in the fraud strategy, we are reinforcing the system-wide response through the Online Crime Centre and improved information sharing so that suspected scam accounts can be spotted sooner and action taken more quickly. I do not pretend that tackling fraud is simple. Fraudsters adapt quickly, and technology, including some of the technology that we have been talking about today, moves very fast, but the direction of travel is very clear.”
“More broadly, the Government’s motor insurance taskforce, which published its final report in 2025, included actions for regulators, industry and the Government to tackle fraud, given the unfortunate role that fraudulent activity plays in increasing claim costs and, in turn, premiums for all consumers. It is also important to be clear about the wider framework that supports this work. Financial institutions are required to maintain robust systems and controls to detect and prevent financial crime under the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Banks must report certain suspicious activity to the National Crime Agency under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and they may also freeze and block accounts if suspicious activity is detected.”
“The Government are working closely with the industry, regulators and consumer groups to close the gaps that criminals exploit. I should add that the FCA is alive to the issue of ghost broking and is looking into it specifically. In October 2024, the Home Office launched the insurance fraud charter with key insurance firms to reduce insurance fraud. The charter supports stronger collaboration and shared action to prevent, detect and disrupt fraud, because the more effectively we tackle fraud at source, the more we protect consumers and the integrity of the market.”
“The Ministry of Justice leads on elements of that agenda but, in some areas, the Financial Conduct Authority has responsibility. I hope the hon. Member will be reassured by the fact that there is ongoing dialogue on the issue between His Majesty’s Treasury and the MOJ to determine what might be done in this area. I hope she will agree that that addresses some of her important points. I want to address specifically the link between online fraud and car insurance. Insurance fraud is a serious issue for all the reasons that I have noted, and it has been well covered in this debate. However, it has an interaction with online criminality. The spoofed ads that are used to harvest personal data, misdirect consumers to fake brokers and facilitate scams ultimately feed wider fraud, particularly serious forms of money laundering.”
“The Government have also launched a new partnership between the Home Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and industry: the online advertising taskforce. The purpose is to strengthen and maximise the adoption of transparency standards across the wider programmatic ecosystem so that bad actors can be identified, disrupted and, when appropriate, prosecuted. That work will report back in early 2027, and the Government have been clear that we will take legislative action within this Parliament if there are not sufficient improvements. The hon. Member for North Shropshire and the shadow EST referred to claims management companies and legal professionals who associate themselves with such companies, and the links between them and car insurance fraud.”
“All these things are not just consumer issues, but significant questions of responsibility and liability in the online ecosystem. If criminals can buy their way into prominence through paid advertising, we must ensure that the systems that place and profit from those adverts do not turn a blind eye. That is exactly why the Online Safety Act 2023 places duties on the largest social media platforms to tackle fraudulent adverts on their services. Ofcom is due to consult on those measures later this year. Once implemented, Ofcom will have the power to take robust enforcement action when it finds non-compliance, including fines of up to £18 million or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.”
“As the hon. Member noted, they can be highly convincing. Indeed, to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer, they look too good to be true. They can appear at the top of search results and be targeted at people precisely when they are looking for help, as the shadow Economic Secretary explained. My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about ghost broking. My statistics might well be worse than the ones that he read out, because my understanding is that the Insurance Fraud Bureau thinks that ghost broking increased by 50% in the last two years. Whatever the exact statistic, there is a serious increase in the crime. My hon. Friend also highlighted a troubling example of identity theft and pointed to the links between ghost broking and follow-on activities. The story that he told was hard to hear.”
“That could mean taking down fraudulent websites, disrupting malicious advertising networks or supporting the freezing of accounts linked to fraud. Alongside that, we have launched a call for evidence on economic crime information sharing. We want to remove barriers that can prevent firms and agencies from acting on intelligence earlier so that suspected scam activity can be identified and stopped before more people are harmed. Let me turn to paid ad spoofing and fraudulent advertising, which was raised by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. The Government recognise that paid-for advertising is being exploited by criminals to reach potential victims at scale. Spoofed ads are designed to look like they come from trusted brands, insurers, brokers, comparison sites and even public bodies. Those are particularly pernicious examples.”
“The central focus of the strategy is disruption: denying criminals the ability to commit fraud in the first place by targeting the tools and methods they use to reach victims. That means acting across the system of Government, law enforcement, regulators, financial institutions, technology companies and telecoms providers, because no single organisation can tackle fraud alone. As part of the strategy, we are investing £31 million in a new online crime centre that will bring together the Government, law enforcement, GCHQ and industry to identify and address the technological enablers of fraud and deliver high-impact interventions. In practice, that means better data and real-time analysis so that we can identify patterns earlier and take faster action.”
“Friend said, that increases premiums for everyone else. The Government are considering how, in the light of its seriousness, the penalties should be strengthened for that offence. I hope that he can take from what I have just said that the Government take fraud extremely seriously. Fraud is the largest crime type in the UK. It harms individuals and businesses, as well as costing our economy billions of pounds each year. It is increasingly driven by organised crime and enabled by technology, as hon. Members have highlighted. That is why fraud is a national security priority for this Government, and we will do what we must to protect the public. In honouring our manifesto commitment, the Government published the new and expanded fraud strategy in March, as we have heard.”
“Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord). Car insurance is not a luxury; it is a legal requirement. For many businesses and families, it is essential to daily life, whether taking children to school, getting to work or caring for relatives. As has been said, fraud undermines confidence in the motor insurance market. It causes direct harm to consumers and drives up costs across the system. Those costs are ultimately paid by people who do the right thing by driving with insurance, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell pointed out that some drivers—far too many, in fact—do not get insurance, but drive regardless, which is a criminal offence. I regret to say that between 2019 and 2024, the cost of claims involving uninsured drivers increased by a huge 37%. As my hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing the debate and highlighting the impact that fraud can have and the devious tactics that fraudsters use. She also spoke about the interplay between those issues and the legal profession. I will address the people who run such platforms later on. I also want to thank other Members who contributed to this thoughtful and important debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), as well as the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon.”
“I beg to move, That this Committee has considered the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.”
“This limited delay will allow the UK to flex the new internal model requirements for market risk, should that prove necessary, to ensure that the UK remains competitive with other major jurisdictions. The draft regulations also provide the Treasury with the ability to extend the transitional period by making further regulations. Any such extension would be time limited, subject to parliamentary approval and used only if necessary to respond to material international developments. In summary, the draft regulations bring near to completion the work to deliver a more agile and responsive prudential regime for banks and investment firms, and I commend them to the Committee.”
“Implementing those specific requirements in the UK ahead of clarity elsewhere risks unnecessary operational complexity for internationally active firms and potentially misaligned implementation, which is exactly why the Government, in conjunction with the PRA, decided to build in flexibility to the UK’s approach. For the new internal model market-risk requirements, the element of Basel 3.1 that will most affect the ability of UK banks to compete in international markets, implementation will be delayed until 1 January 2028. The draft instrument gives effect to that approach by disapplying the updated internal market risk rules during the transitional period from 1 January 2027 to 31 December 2027 and, during that period, firms will continue to apply the existing requirements.”
“The UK remains committed to the full and consistent adoption of the Basel reforms, and the PRA intends to implement most of the new Basel 3.1 rules from 1 January 2027. That will help to ensure that the banking system is well capitalised, while giving domestic-focused firms the regulatory certainty that they need to plan for the future and to invest in the real economy, including small businesses and infrastructure projects. We recognise, however, that the timing of implementation in other major jurisdictions remains unclear, in particular for certain market risk requirements affecting banks that use internal models. That is particularly relevant for the internationally active firms with cross-border trading activity.”
“For example, the definition of what constitutes an investment firm is being restated in legislation, rather than being defined by the PRA rule book. That is necessary for the continuity of existing legislation and to ensure that the Government and Parliament remain in control of which regulatory activities should be regulated. The instrument does not introduce new regulatory requirements, and it does not make any substantive change to the scope or effect of the definitions being restated. Its purpose is simply to maintain legal continuity and to ensure that the prudential framework continues to operate as intended as we complete the move to the FSMA model. The second SI that I will discuss is the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.”
“The Government are now applying the FSMA model to the CRR by revoking the CRR, so that the Prudential Regulation Authority can replace requirements in legislation with requirements in PRA rules, resulting in a more user-friendly, single-source book of prudential rules for firms. Where important elements of the CRR need to stay in legislation to provide the policy framework within which the PRA must operate, those elements are restated, using powers provided under FSMA 2023. The first SI that I will discuss is the Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, which simply restate important definitions from the CRR that need to stay on the statute book.”
“Both statutory instruments are made under FSMA, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. Together, the two instruments will help to deliver a more agile and responsive capital framework for UK banks and investment firms. Following the EU exit, the UK retained a body of financial services legislation known as assimilated law, which includes the capital requirements regulation, which sets the detailed and often technical capital rules. As hon. Members know, the UK follows the FSMA model of regulation, which involves regulatory standards being set by expert independent regulators that work within a policy framework set by Government and Parliament.”
“For all the reasons I have set out, which I will not repeat, the draft regulations are designed to ensure that, for our internationally active banks, we do not create an undue, unnecessary and problematic degree of inconsistency between all those very important jurisdictions. As I made clear, the draft regulations allow the Treasury the power to extend the transitional period that we are putting in place, if necessary, which would then be subject to the negative procedure. Question put and agreed to. DRAFT CREDIT INSTITUTIONS AND INVESTMENT FIRMS (MISCELLANEOUS DEFINITIONS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. —(Lucy Rigby.)”
“Without getting into all the nitty-gritty detail, the upshot is that the revised US proposals remain broadly aligned with international standards and the UK’s rules. Briefly, I also want to touch on the EU, because that is also very important. Again, there is broad alignment, although there has been some commentary in the press that the EU banking union is thinking about going out to an even longer date—they were talking about 2030. I think I am right in saying that we are yet to have that fully confirmed. If anything, that comes back to the importance of building in flexibility. We, particularly the PRA, need to have a sufficient degree of agility and nimbleness built into what we can do, which is the approach that we are taking. Should international circumstances change, we and the PRA need to remain alert to those positions.”
“I am very grateful to the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for their input on the draft regulations. Their questions are very apt and go straight to the nub of this issue. What is happening in other jurisdictions is really important, and that is why we are seeking to include a degree of flexibility in the draft regulations. As I said in my opening remarks, we are postponing a certain element until 1 January 2028 for internationally active banks, and I set out why doing so is really important. However, there is potential for further flexibility, exactly as I said, subject to what goes on in other jurisdictions. As I am sure the shadow EST knows, the US recently put out some revised proposals in March.”
“We are backing that commitment with real action, with record support for the British Business Bank and reforms that strengthen accountability without undermining growth. We are committed to robust regulation to international high standards, so that we have a strong financial services sector. Those ought not to be intentions but the bedrock of the financial services system. That is why access to redress for SMEs has been widened so significantly and why accountability at the top of financial firms is now personal and enforceable. It is also why the regulatory perimeter continues to be kept under careful review, deliberately and responsibly. The hon. Member for Strangford referred to discretionary commission arrangements.”
“I do not wish to downplay the seriousness of the matters we have discussed today, but the Government do not believe that a full public inquiry would, at this point be the right course for us to take. I say that with reference both to the long history of reviews, prosecutions, redress schemes and judicial reviews, which would all require unpicking to some degree, and importantly, to the changes to the regulatory landscape that were made subsequently, as a result of the gaps that this scandal exposed. I want to be clear that the Government are instead focused on ensuring that the regulatory landscape is fit for purpose and on supporting SMEs to grow with confidence, improving their access to finance and ensuring that the financial services sector operates to high standards that command trust.”
“Today’s debate, like other parliamentary activity on the same topic over a long period, some of which I have reviewed for this debate, has highlighted the serious and clear injustices that some businesses suffered and the impact that had. The current Government obviously cannot undo the harm that has already occurred, more is the pity, but nor can we, or should we, override independent decisions taken by the courts within the legal framework that applied at the time. I want to address this directly, hard as it may be to hear. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington wishes me to commit today to opening a full judge-led public inquiry into these issues.”
“That was a direct response to the gaps exposed by earlier scandals, including those we have talked about today. The ombudsman now provides a far wider safety net for small and medium-sized businesses than existed during the period under discussion. In addition, the senior managers and certification regime has transformed accountability in financial services. Senior individuals can now be held personally responsible for the way that firms treat SME customers, whether activity is regulated or unregulated. That cultural shift, which stems from both of those, is profound. It did not exist during the years that Members have understandably focused on today.”
“Indeed, even outwith these current issues, reopening past decisions would create significant legal uncertainty and risk that could affect the availability and cost of finance for SMEs today. Although I appreciate it is known by those here, I should note that subsequent reviews, and ultimately the courts, considered whether the regulator had acted lawfully in setting the scope and perimeter of that scheme, and concluded that it did. I mention that because it is an important consideration in any assertion that it is for the current Government to seek to reopen these issues. I referred to a different regulatory environment from that existing now. I will briefly explain why our regulatory landscape is now better. Since 2019, the vast majority of SMEs, around 99%, have been able to bring complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service.”
“I recognise that many of those represented here remain deeply dissatisfied with how that scheme operated and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested. I do not intend to in any sense minimise or underplay any of that frustration, which is clearly very strongly felt. While I understand that the process at the time regarding that redress scheme was slow and sometimes no doubt deeply frustrating, it was established with the intention of delivering redress within the legal and regulatory constraints that applied at that time. One such constraint related to tailored business loans. Most business lending fell outside the scope of the FCA and therefore beyond its powers to compel redress. We cannot extend regulation retrospectively.”
“It also refutes the allegations of collusion and regulatory failure which have been referred to today. With reference to the independence of the courts, in a series of cases, the courts have made findings in relation to disclosure, and Jonathan Swift KC referenced those findings as settled legal context, concluding that the FCA acted lawfully in defining the scope of the IRHP redress scheme. It is true that past regulatory reviews were conducted within the scope of the powers available to the regulator at that time and within the regulatory perimeter that Parliament had set. It is of critical importance that the wider regulatory framework has now changed. However, before I come to that, I want to address the previous redress scheme in more detail.”
“Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who articulated Catherine and Nigel’s heartbreaking story very well, have spoken about hidden credit lines or contingent obligations. Those are clearly very serious allegations, and it is right that they are treated seriously. For the reasons I have set out, where issues relate to the conduct of regulatory firms, they are for the FCA to consider using its statutory powers, evidence base and judgment—with that judgment being independent, again for the reasons that I have set out. In the light of the independence that we have been discussing, I should say that the FCA firmly refutes the claims made in the BankConfidential report—which I have here—about the nature and impact of the credit lines that we have been discussing.”
“Without prejudice to the gaze of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I am sure that most of us would like to think not only that might we have dealt with the situation rather better, but that in a best-case scenario regulation and supervision would have been designed such that none of these issues would have arisen in the first place. That goes right to the root of why we are all here today, and indeed critical regulatory changes were made following this scandal. However, this Government inherited a set of decisions, conclusions, judicial findings, judgments and levels of compensation that were delivered some time ago. Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford, a consistent champion of his constituents whose specific points I will come to shortly, and my hon.”
“I acknowledge the argument that the Government should act independently of the regulator and the regulatory system and look again at this issue with fresh eyes using their own statutory powers. Given the many reviews of these issues, the independent and broad-based redress schemes over more than a decade, the successful prosecutions, convictions, judicial reviews, and other investigations, the question that the current Government must ask is whether steps to reopen these issues now will lead to better or different outcomes, and, importantly, more redress for those affected. There are questions as to whether this Government would have made the same decisions if confronted with the same problems as the previous one—and if our decisions would have been different or indeed more or less effective.”
“Indeed, partly with that point in mind, I say that the Treasury does not have the power to direct the FCA to intervene in individual cases or to investigate matters that fell outside the regulatory perimeter that applied at the time—I am not sure that is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington is asking the Treasury to do at this point in any event. The Treasury also does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own. I am sure hon. Members are aware that the independence of the FCA and the Financial Ombudsman Service is fundamental to our constitutional settlement. The separation between the Treasury and the wider regulatory authorities is not a technicality; it is, in theory, a safeguard for businesses and for consumers.”
“Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), were in government for the last 14 years—so I want to set out the current Government’s understanding of the framework within which decisions about the redress scheme were taken at the time. The constraints, in so far as they concern regulatory oversight, reflect the constitutional settlement that underpins the UK’s regulatory system, with which I know hon. Members are familiar. I would imagine that we would all wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green that regulators should at all times act with integrity and independence.”
“Although there have been a number of reviews and pieces of litigation, as I will come to later, the main redress scheme for IRHP resulted in over £2 billion paid in total to thousands of affected businesses. It was undeniably unsatisfactory that the overall response to these issues has been piecemeal and complex, and the process was very often slow and frustrating to deal with. However, I am told that the IRHP redress scheme was conceived as a means of providing redress within the legal and regulatory constraints of the time. That time was more than 10 years ago, and some instances of the subject matter that we are discussing today go back around 25 years. Clearly, I was not part of the Treasury in 2012, nor were Labour in government—the party of the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon.”
“Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—the latter knows I struggle sometimes to pronounce the name of his constituency; I hope he thinks I had a decent go—and the spokespeople from other parties for their contributions to the debate. They have shared experiences of those they represent and broader views, and in doing so, they have been clear about the deep sense of injustice and harm felt by many businesses that were affected by these issues—I know of the same in my own postbag. Not least because of the correspondence I have had and what we have heard today, I recognise that some businesses remain deeply dissatisfied with the operation of the original redress scheme and that its conclusions continue to be strongly contested.”
“Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan); the Evans family, referred to by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone); and the Lilley family, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald). As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to, in some instances there are hideous personal tragedies, as no doubt may have been experienced by some of the people who are sat behind him in the Public Gallery today. To that end, I thank and acknowledge my hon. Friends the Members for Poole, for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne), and for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, and the hon.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and for further airing these issues. As he mentioned, there has been a long history of parliamentary interest in these issues, over at least 14 years. That is for good reason, for not only are we deeply committed to justice and do we abhor injustice in this country, but SMEs are the lifeblood of our economy. The events of the IHRP scandal were completely wrong and abhorrent. From a personal point of view, I cannot deny how hard it is to hear and read about horrific personal circumstances, not least those of the Glanville family, referred to by my hon.”
“My right hon. Friend has pre-empted my offer. To be direct, yes, I will come and meet his APPG to listen further. I hope I have successfully communicated this morning that the Government do believe— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).”
“Where they fall short of those expectations, the FCA can and will ask for closures to be paused and I fully support those FCA powers. As a Government, we expect the FCA to use them where they consider it necessary to do so. Crucially, we also believe it is right that no branch can close until any recommended services are put in place.”
“Many have used the free current account switching service to change provider. The switching service ensures that all payments and balances are automatically transferred to a new account, but for those firms that are changing their branch network, there are rules and obligations. In those circumstances, it is important that all Members know that decisions to close branches must be taken with regard to their impact on customers and communities. The FCA’s branch closure guidance is very clear that firms must carefully assess the effect of a planned closure on customers’ everyday banking and cash access needs. Let me underline that point: it is very important, not least because of some of the contributions to today’s debate. Banks are expected to put appropriate alternatives in place.”