Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas

I beg to move, That this House has considered the provision of face-to-face banking services in rural areas. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. Banking services in rural areas have been decimated. While big banks make billions in profits, they close branches with impunity, turning their backs on customers and leaving small businesses struggling with the impact. Last year, Lloyds reported a £6.7 billion pre-tax profit and yet in the same period it shut 218 branches, with a further 95 to close this year. Sixty-four per cent of all bank and building society branches that were open in January 2015 have closed in the past 10 years, numbering more than 6,000. In my constituency, which covers about 450 square miles, we have one bank branch left, and I wonder how long that will be there.

Does the hon. Member agree that the scale of closures is phenomenal and that while the banking hub roll-out is welcome in rural areas such as mine and hers, the scale of the closures is defeating that roll-out? We need an increase in the number of banking hubs to meet the demand on the streets.

I will get to banking hubs in just a minute. Why do we allow closures to happen? Why do the Government not act with urgency to turn around the decimation in rural banking, which has the biggest impact on the most vulnerable people—the elderly, the disabled—those who cannot use online services and areas where digital connectivity is so bad that using online services can literally be impossible? It is simply outrageous that banks have been able to get away with this to such an extent and at such speed. I call on the Labour Government to address the issue with urgency. People still want to use in-person banking services, even young people and those who already bank online: 81% of UK adults say that they have accessed in-person banking services at least once in the past two years, while 48% say they have accessed in-person banking services every month. It is simply not true that everyone is happy to bank online all the time.

In a remote area such as South Shropshire, just over half of my constituents have high-speed internet, so face-to-face banking is absolutely important. We have seen the issue in Bridgnorth, Church Stretton and Ludlow. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government have to take that into consideration? It is not one size fits all.

I absolutely agree. On my tour this summer, I met someone who was frozen out of her bank. She could not get the confirmation code on her phone because she has no mobile phone signal, so her bank account is now closed to her. She will have to travel more than an hour to get to a bank to get back into her bank account. It is an absolute mess. Face-to-face banking is simply essential for millions of people and thousands of small businesses across the UK. When a loved one has died and finances have to be sorted out, it is normal to want to speak to another human being, not to a chatbot. People might need emergency access to funds, to make a complicated transaction or to send money abroad—out-of-the-ordinary banking matters that chatbots simply do not understand and cannot help with. Businesses might want to take out a loan, or extend or increase borrowing. Yes, people could do that over the phone, but for many a face-to-face conversation is more manageable. The rapid and ruthless shift towards online banking may suit those of us who work odd hours, travel around a lot and would frankly find it hard to pop into our high street branch, but at the same time, it is potentially disenfranchising millions of people from banking services.

In response to some of the things that the hon. Lady is describing, the last Conservative Government legislated to protect access to cash, but I think we now all recognise the need to legislate for access to face-to-face banking. Will she join me in calling on the Minister to support my In-Person Banking Services Bill to deliver more banking hubs?

I will come on to the legislation passed by the previous Conservative Government in just a minute. In rural areas, poor internet, non-existent public transport and a higher proportion of elderly residents who are less likely to manage their money online mean that losing the local bank can have a huge impact. The wipe-out in rural areas is mind boggling. A staggering 86% of people in rural areas have seen their closest bank branch—which 10 years ago was within a mile—close. For them, there is no alternative bank to switch to. As banks have closed, the impact of losing access to banking services has been disproportionately felt by those in rural areas, who simply cannot go to another bank in town. Instead, they are left navigating sporadic or non-existent public transport, having to set aside half a day for the outing just to visit the bank. It can be a major mission in a community that is poorly serviced.

Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine is large at 1,250 square miles and the population is elderly. The No. 25 bus runs every two and half hours. If a constituent needs to bank in Taunton, it takes five hours to get there and back. Does she agree that increasing face-to-face banking services, particularly in enormous constituencies such as mine, is crucial?

I could not agree more. We are facing a perfect storm of decimated public transport; appalling digital connectivity that must be addressed, as we repeatedly say in this place; and closure of banking services. Those three make a toxic combination. Consumers and small businesses are frustrated with the service they are left with, as is the case in Totnes in my constituency. In September last year, Lloyds announced it was closing the final bank in town, leaving residents without access to banking services beyond a couple of free ATMs and the post office. It seemed obvious to me that, when Lloyds closed its doors, the remaining banking services in the town would be insufficient and that it would get a banking hub. We have a thriving market once a week, where many people use cash. We have 120 independent high street businesses, an older than average population, very poor digital connectivity and poor public transport to other towns. Not only does the town have 13,500 residents, but thousands more people in surrounding villages use it for banking. The cash access request that I submitted to Link was turned down. I appealed but, to my huge disappointment, Link upheld its original decision, despite my meeting officials from the Treasury and raising the matter with the Prime Minister.

The hon. Lady’s description of using Link for a cash access assessment for banking hubs rings true in my experience of helping my community apply for one in the rural town of Holywell, which serves lots of villages. It is not properly understood how important access to cash is, not only for local people—and the age demographic point is also true of my constituency—but for local businesses, particularly rural ones. Does the hon. Lady agree that rural and semi-rural towns should be recognised in the outcomes of the review when it is published in October?

I absolutely want to see that. When Link assesses rural locations, it considers whether alternative access to cash facilities are available within three miles or 30 minutes on public transport. For Totnes, it noted that alternative facilities were available within a 19-minute bus journey—that is on a really good day. But that is only relevant to those who live in the centre of Totnes. If someone starts from one of the many satellite villages that use the bank in Totnes, it is a completely different story. There may not even be a bus to get into Totnes to pick up the other bus to get to Paignton and the bank. The impact on local residents and businesses will be familiar: queues at the post office, which become impossible in the run-up to Christmas; hundreds of extra customers for the post office, which has no extra space or staff to cope; and businesses less keen to accept cash, because the only place they can pay it in is the post office. If someone is running a shop on their own, as I did for six years, it is impossible to shut up shop and go down the road to queue at the post office, because they have to keep the shop open to make money.

Bridport in my constituency is sometimes referred to as Totnes-lite. Like Totnes, it has a high concentration of independent retailers, tradespeople and small businesses who rely on cash deposits. On average, a small or medium-sized enterprise deposits cash about 25 times a year and withdraws cash about 15 times a year. Groves Nurseries highlights the exact issue that my hon. Friend mentions: how to keep the business open, run a successful operation and drive to the nearest town every time there is a need to deposit or withdraw cash.

I could not agree more. It is really important that we protect access to cash. My residents do not want to feel that they are being forced into a cashless society. Small businesses used to use the bank’s night safe, but that option has now gone.

There are lots of similarities between Coalville and Totnes, including a monastery just a few minutes away. The biggest issue is that banking hubs, although incredibly important, do not provide the excellent business banking services that businesses need. Does the hon. Member agree that the issue is about business support as well as cash access, and that we need to expand the theme of banking hubs?

The hon. Member is absolutely right. We have two banking hubs in my constituency, opened before the rules were tightened. People have said to me that even those banking hubs do not provide all the services they need. In a 21st-century banking offer for rural Britain, banking hubs are the obvious solution—rather than a branch of every bank—but they must be competent and capable of offering all the services that people need. Five years ago, the rules for receiving a banking hub were much broader, and Dartmouth got one just in time. The current criteria for banking hubs are far too narrow. In September 2024, the Financial Conduct Authority substantially tightened the rules, placing the focus solely on access to cash. The current criteria completely discount all other reasons why someone might need to use a bank. They also do not take account of poor public transport and an older than average population. They ignore the fact that banks do so much more than just give out cash. I urge the Government to expand the rules for granting a banking hub. I have met with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who shares my view that the current criteria are far too narrow. I heard the former Prime Minister tell the Chamber that a banking hub can be rolled out wherever a community needs one, but the policy that Link adheres to does not reflect that, so it must be changed. If necessary, we need legislation to make the banks listen. There simply must be a better minimum service coverage of banking hubs across the UK. So many MPs are campaigning for them that it is clearly a country-wide problem. We know that the banks can afford it, so for once, this is not a question of finding the money or funding. They can afford it. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, passed by the Conservative Government, gave the Financial Conduct Authority powers to protect cash access but, astonishingly, did not extend those powers to protecting wider banking services but limited them to cash. Back then, Labour tabled amendments to the Bill to extend the power to protect banking services, but they were not taken up by the Conservative Government. Now in government, Labour has been very slow to do what it pushed for in opposition. I urge the Government to rediscover their passion for protecting banking services by amending the Financial Services and Markets Bill that is currently making its way through the other place. We must ensure that face-to-face banking services receive the same protections as access to cash, whether that be via banking hubs, as should be the case in Totnes, or via other means, such as increasing the provision in post offices. As the Post Office is in trouble these days, with many branches closing, surely there must be an all-encompassing solution to make these places viable. Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords have tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and I wholeheartedly support it. It would require the Treasury to consider whether assessments following bank closures should extend beyond access to cash to evaluate local community needs for essential in-person banking services when making regulations. The answer is, “Yes. Absolutely, it should,” because banking is about more than just getting cash out of a hole in the wall. I hope that the Government will adopt the amendment. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the Government’s access to banking services review, which is due to be published shortly. I am sure that it will lay bare the evidence of the real-world impact of bank branch closures and demonstrate that the Government must go further in ensuring that people can access banking services. Having a bank account and being able to access a range of banking services are a necessity in modern society, not a luxury. The Government must rebalance things in favour of our high streets and communities and put an end to the favourable treatment for big banks, which repeatedly cut their services with no regard for the impact on the lives of their customers. Enough now—it is time that the Government took action to protect and restore face-to-face banking services across rural areas.

Order. As everyone can see from looking around the Chamber, this is an exceptionally heavily subscribed debate. We will have to move straight to a two-minute time limit. We shall start with Dr Peter Prinsley.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. Welcome back from the summer holidays, everybody. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. I will focus my remarks on what the loss of banking services means for rural communities such as those in Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. Let us imagine an older resident living in Ixworth, Stanton or one of the smaller villages surrounding our two market towns. A payment that they do not recognise appears on their statement. They are worried that they might have been scammed, and they want to speak to somebody they trust, show them the letter they have received and understand what to do next. For somebody living in a city or a town, that would be a short walk to the nearest branch, but for a person in rural Suffolk, it means arranging a lift, relying on an infrequent bus service or paying for a taxi—only to discover, perhaps, that the bank is closed. That is the reality behind every announcement of another bank closure. We hear that customers are moving online. Revolut, which is now the fastest-growing bank in the country, has no branches. But the fact that most people use an app does not mean that everybody can, and it certainly does not mean that every banking problem can be solved through one. There are moments when people need to talk to somebody. That is particularly important in my constituency of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, where there are large numbers of elderly residents. When a bank closes, the impact spreads everywhere. The planned closure of the Halifax branch in Bury St Edmunds is another reminder of the services that we cannot take for granted. I am happy that the Government have a manifesto commitment to working with the banking industry to deliver 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. Banking hubs are sensible alternatives that give customers access to cash and the opportunity to speak privately with representatives of their bank. However, rural communities must be properly considered when deciding where these hubs are located. Residents in rural Suffolk should not receive a second-class service simply because of where they live.

I thank my near neighbour, the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden), for bringing this important subject to the House. Like her, I have seen many of these problems in my constituency. We have had a number of problems in Budleigh: every major bank has left the town. Importantly, there are a number of smaller surrounding villages, such as East Budleigh and Colaton Raleigh, meaning that the town supports around 6,500 people, yet we have no access to cash whatsoever. The area is a tourist economy, with people coming down during the summer, but there is no access to cash for tourists. On multiple occasions, people have tried to take out money from the cash machine on the side of Tesco, but the money has simply run out. That is not good enough for a place that relies on tourists. We have seen a similar problem in Exmouth, where our post office is closing and we have one remaining bank. Exmouth is one of the largest towns in Devon, so that is just not acceptable. Looking at the demographics, we are a largely elderly constituency where people have mobility issues, and access to transport is not the same as in London, Manchester or other bigger cities, so this needs to be sorted out rapidly. We have heard strong calls for a banking hub, and we have been trying to work with Link for the past year but have been rejected twice. From what we have seen, Link does not incorporate the geographic and demographic issues that I have just raised. I strongly call on the Minister to reassess the criteria that Link is using to make sure that constituencies like mine are not left out.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. While I welcome the many improvements to the digital banking experience over the past decade, I am concerned that those changes are moving services further away from the most vulnerable and from remote constituencies where digital connectivity is very poor. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. In my remote coastal constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, the most southerly Labour constituency in the country, 85% of bank and building society branches have closed. We have just four branches left, two of which are due to close in a month’s time, and one of the remaining two is open only on Mondays. We must appreciate that online banking is far less accessible for older people, the vulnerable and the disabled, and that it is not a silver bullet for charities and small businesses that receive and need to deposit cash. I welcome the roll-out of the banking hubs in my constituency, and I look forward to the first permanent hub in Camborne opening in the coming weeks. We also have temporary hubs in Redruth and Hayle and a deposit machine in Perranporth. Planning permission has gone in for a permanent hub in Redruth, which I hope progresses smoothly. I welcome the Government’s review, and I urge the Minister to ensure that rural and remote coastal communities are, for once, at the heart of Government thinking as we consider what further action might be necessary to prioritise digital connectivity and secure permanent banking provision in places such as Redruth and Hayle.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. Making sure that people can still access cash and speak to someone from their bank has been one of my longest-running campaigns in my time working for the residents of North Norfolk. I remember well the trip that the council leader Tim Adams and I took to Acton in London to see one of the first banking hubs in action back in 2023. There were only seven in the whole country then, and I am glad to report that there are now three in my constituency alone. However, in the coming months I will still be campaigning to secure services in both Stalham and Hoveton, which are without any high street banks. There are clusters of thousands of people in the villages in my constituency who are left underserved because the current criteria do not guarantee them access to services, as we have heard from many hon. Members today. People in constituencies such as North Norfolk still rely on physical banking and the benefits of handling financial matters with a friendly face in person. A constituent from one of those broads villages told me that she considers herself to be fairly digitally able, but that she finds herself anxious about online banking when large sums or important transactions are at stake. Banks need to accept that is a perfectly reasonable position and deliver reassurance for their customers. Access to non-digital alternatives should be a right, not a privilege. It is about providing security and comfort for those who are not native to the digital world. It is not just about age; it is also important for those in rural areas for whom digital access is a challenge. I know that the answer to many of the questions raised today will be, “Wait for the access to banking services review.” I want to be able to look my constituents in the face and tell them that the review will make a meaningful difference to them. If the Minister will not give us an early hint today, all I ask is that she gives us the reassurance that rural communities such as North Norfolk will be well served by the findings of the review and that the concerns raised today on their behalf are being heard and acted upon.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing such a vital debate. We are obviously talking about a largely defensive issue—defending cash access for our communities and defending the banking services that our communities need—but we need a much more broad-ranging debate about what the Government could do proactively to bring banking services to more rural communities. Opening a banking hub months after a community has lost a bank branch will give access to only some of the services that have been lost. Access to cash is great if that is a person’s only need, but a banking hub can never provide the kind of support that people might need, no matter where they live. I am thinking about things such as delegated power of attorney or some of the additional support that young entrepreneurs need to bring jobs and investment into rural areas, for which towns such as Haltwhistle in my constituency are crying out. The town has not received nearly enough support from the “Keystone cops” at Northumberland county council. Given the time available, I particularly want to focus on Haltwhistle. We have been trying to get better banking services in the town since I was elected—it was the subject of one of the first speeches I gave as an MP—but it consistently fails to meet the guidelines for a banking hub. There is some access to cash through ATMs at supermarkets or through the post offices’ services with partner banks, but those are not enough. The ATMs are often out of order and the post offices do not meet the needs of the local business community. I am particularly concerned about the damage that the lack of cash access does to the business community. It does not just discourage entrepreneurs from setting up in the area; it also forces people to use online giants in a town where 30% of the population is over 65. It is also a dispersed community, with the service serving not just the town of Haltwhistle, but Featherstone, Melkridge, Plenmeller, Gilsland and Greenhead. I would like to invite the Minister to meet some of the Haltwhistle businesses that have real concerns about the ongoing lack of access to cash, and to discuss how we can better support businesses in rural areas through better banking provision.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing the debate. Members will be aware of the half-hour Adjournment debate that I recently led, in which there were 19 interventions on me and the Minister. Many of those Members are present today, which demonstrates the strength and breadth of cross-party support on this issue. It is important to bear that huge cross-party support in mind. In my constituency, I have communities that are 65 miles from the nearest bank branch. For context, that is the same distance as from here to Hastings or Cambridge. It is an enormous distance, and people are hours of travel from a bank branch. That includes people who may be seeking entrepreneurship advice, perhaps on the first steps in setting up their own business. They may not know who to contact, but if they are able to see someone face to face in a branch, they can be told, “These are the people you need to speak to. This is how you set up an account”—not detailed business advice, but just the basics of how to access the system. People risk falling at the first hurdle otherwise. I restate the point about people who may be unsure about digital services, or who are attempting to use apps but need a bit of advice. They might do something on the app and then think, “Oh, I’m not sure I’ve done that right.” They need the opportunity to go into a bank. If someone has suffered a bereavement, they are looking for face-to-face contact and reassurance that their joint bank account will be sorted out. These are critical points in people’s lives. Finally, many of us will have been at highland games and agricultural shows, where charities hold lots of raffles and collect lots of cash. For people in my constituency, it is hours of travel to go to bank that cash.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing today’s important debate. I represent a very urban constituency, but I also chair the Scottish Affairs Committee and we have been looking at this issue as part of an inquiry into Scotland’s high streets. I do not have to tell you, Mr Wishart, that many Scottish communities are rural and/or remote. It is also important to note that Scotland’s population is older, relative to the UK average, and that in many areas, access to reliable internet at a decent speed is extremely poor, if it exists at all. Those factors are clearly very significant, but The Herald reported earlier this summer that three in four bank branches in Scotland have closed in the last decade. For remote and rural areas, that means, as we have heard, lengthy journeys and unreliable travel connections to access alternative branches—often for people who cannot easily move to online banking. We have heard from Members whose constituents are travelling more than 100 miles to get to the nearest bank to access the kinds of services that they used to be able to get locally. UK Finance responded to our concerns by noting that only 2% of the UK population rely exclusively on in-person branches to do their banking, but it was unable to provide us with an equivalent figure specifically for rural Scotland. We were also disappointed at its very poor understanding of how much further—

The metropolis of Gairloch in Wester Ross—[Laughter.] It is a major town, I will have you know. It has seen its only bank closed, and Dingwall has seen its bank closed, so people have to travel two hours, each way, to get to Inverness city, and there is only one bus a day. That is bringing the town to its knees, and it is happening up and down the west coast. Does the hon. Member agree that this sort of thing is an enormous reason why we are seeing such major depopulation in remote areas?

The hon. Member makes a very valid point. I know that this issue concerns him greatly, because he has spoken to me about it on many occasions. There is an issue, as has been mentioned, about access to cash. Access to cash is important, but access to wider banking services is also crucial—something that Link acknowledged to us.

In my constituency, 89% of my banks have closed in the last 10 years. Alongside that, this year, Barclays has said that it will withdraw its banking van, which has helped to contribute to the provision of face-to-face banking for my constituents. Does the hon. Lady share my frustration and agree that banks need to do better?

If I can speak for colleagues, I think that that would be the conclusion of everyone in the room. Importantly, our Committee asked witnesses what they would like to come from the Government’s review. I will briefly run through those points: a clear definition for what reasonable access to in-person banking services looks like, with consideration for geography and a minimum service level for consumers and small businesses, and a clear definition of what basic services should be offered in any in-person banking facility. They also wanted further investment in the banking hubs model so that it can provide more support to customers; for example, enhanced video links would allow customers to speak with specialist advisers who might not be able to travel to the region. That is not a panacea, but those steps might be helpful and I hope that the Minister will address them in her response.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. In my constituency, there is not a single bank branch. This issue is a particular challenge for rural communities because not only do we lack bank branches; public transport is extremely limited and, in some areas, non-existent. While many people are comfortable with using digital banking, we should not assume that everyone can simply move online. For older residents and those less confident with technology, the loss of face-to-face provision can be particularly challenging. In rural areas, poor broadband and unreliable mobile coverage only compound the problem. There is real irony in increasingly telling people in precisely those communities where digital infrastructure can be least reliable to rely on digital banking. Alongside the social impact, there is an economic impact. Many small businesses still handle significant amounts of cash and need practical ways to deposit takings, obtain change and manage their finances. Having to travel long distances to do that means lost working hours and additional costs, as well as greater security risks. Of course, I recognise that banking habits are changing and that alternative provision has an important role to play, but alternatives work only if they exist, are accessible and are sustainable. We are also seeing post offices under pressure, with local branches closing in villages including Malpas and Kelsall. It is important that access to banking is measured not simply by the distance to the nearest bank branch but by whether people can genuinely access banking services, and that we take a holistic approach that ensures that rural communities like mine are not simply expected to make do, but properly supported.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for raising this important issue, and I welcome Members back after a long summer. First, I have a holiday confession: I spent a week in Spain without touching a euro or a cent—not that I made my partner pay for everything; I just used a digital app. On my return, there was that quaint item in the post: a cheque, which I banked yesterday using a digital app. The truth is that we are using banks and handling cash less and less, but that does not mean that communities like mine in the Western Isles do not need banking services. This summer, the Bank of Scotland branch in Benbecula in my constituency closed its doors. That followed the closure of branches in Harris and in the port town of Lochmaddy. Those closures have raised concerns about banking services across the islands and in other parts of rural Scotland. My constituents cannot simply drive to the next bank, because it is across the sea on the mainland. In passing, I pay tribute to the mobile banking service, the bank van, which the RBS is still providing in the islands and other parts of Scotland. The closure of banking services has profound effects on islands, because another truth is that communities in my constituency, particularly in Uist, face a stark depopulation crisis. There is an ageing population and economically active families are being pushed away by unaffordable housing, lack of childcare and lack of digital and physical connectivity, with failing ferries and unaffordable air fares. Without correction, we will lose not just people but communities. Banking services, as well as housing and a growing economy, have to be part of the jigsaw to retain populations. In cash-heavy local economies, the loss of any branch is important. That is why I welcome the banking services review, but remind Ministers that they must move quickly and make sure that the approach is not one size fits all. Rural and island areas like mine rely on these vital services. Under the rules, an area should have a population of 10,000 to have a banking hub, but the population of Uist is 4,500. We need flexibility in the banking review because one size does not fit all.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I want to talk about my experience in my constituency. In Harleston, we have a temporary banking hub that has been operating for some time. I have been working with the community to press for a permanent location to be confirmed, but it is taking some time to do so. In Halesworth, the last remaining banking presence closed in December 2025, leaving the market town without a bank. The post office closed around the same time, and while we have secured a temporary post office, we do not yet have a permanent post office back on the high street. The market town of Eye has no bank branches and was without a post office for two years. It took a huge amount of work by Green councillors to secure the return of a post office, which was thanks to a local shopkeeper taking it on. The market town of Bungay perhaps illustrates the biggest problem here. The town once had branches of HSBC, Barclays, NatWest and Lloyds, but those have all gone. Link concluded that Bungay does not meet the banking hub requirements because cash facilities remain available, but access to cash is not the same as access to banking or the personalised support that staff, branches and banking hubs provide. Link also said that a banking hub would not be granted for Bungay because there is one in Harleston, but in rural communities, getting from one market town to another is not always easy. As the Government review access to banking services, will the Minister look at whether communities such as Bungay, where there is a clear demand for face-to-face services, can qualify for banking hubs even if cash withdrawals are accessible? Can Link’s assessment criteria be updated to reflect that, and can the bureaucratic obstacles to getting replacement post offices and banking hubs be reduced? We have heard clearly from Members across the Chamber how crucial banking services are, particularly to rural communities, to avoiding isolation and ensuring that our market towns can flourish. I hope that Government policies will make that easier.

I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this important debate. It is pertinent for the whole of my constituency, but particularly for Thetford where, towards the end of last year, we lost the last two banks in our town centre. Those closures coincided with the loss of our town centre post office, leaving the fourth largest settlement in Norfolk—a town of nearly 30,000 people—and the many surrounding villages that rely on it as a service centre without a single bank or post office. I am appalled that Post Office Ltd allowed our town centre post office to close last November, claiming that a new one was imminent, only for there to be no provision nearly a year later. With the last two banks and the main post office closing, it is no wonder that retailers told me that footfall was significantly down in Thetford last Christmas and that, consequently, sales were bleak. A temporary banking hub did follow, but there was a gap in services and a lot of confusion due to limited publicity. As time has dragged on, it has become clear that what I regard as temporary is not the same as what Cash Access UK regards as temporary: we are still in the temporary banking hub nearly a year later, with no date set for the permanent site to open. Of course, a temporary service, and even a permanent service, does not come with like-for-like services. We do not have Saturday banking access, for example, and there is no external ATM—no like-for-like replacement for what we had with a fully functioning bank. When I challenged the decision about the ATM, I was told that a review indicated that there was sufficient coverage. I was highly amused: “sufficient coverage” included the ATM located in the local bingo hall; that is accessible only to members and only when the bingo is open, which they have to pay to get into, and they then have to pay to use the ATM. We must have like-for-like services when branch closures happen.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. The timing is fantastic: we have a dynamic Minister at the Dispatch Box, we have an imminent Government review from Richard Lloyd in response to this and we have the opportunity to listen to this cross-party call for change. After a review, the Conservative Government recognised the need for cash and legislated for it; the introduction of banking hubs, and eventually cash hubs, was all part of that. I am very proud of what the Conservative Government did there, but, as the hon. Member for South Devon set out and other Members have supported, face-to-face banking is an important part too. I hope and expect that we can move forward in the right way and get the balance right between being overly prescriptive to the banking industry and setting a clear sense of direction to make sure that no one is left behind, as so many Members have set out. It is a happy coincidence that we are having this debate today, because it is the day that Lloyds customers can once again deposit a cheque at a post office or banking hub. Mr and Mrs Proctor came to see me in Withernsea with a simple problem: they could not pay a cheque into their Lloyds account at their local banking hub, which surprised me. I wrote to Lloyds about it, but nothing came about. I then raised it with the Chancellor, and colleagues from right across the House signed a joint letter to the chief executive of Lloyds Bank. I am pleased to say that Lloyds listened and, as of this morning, people can deposit cheques at those places. These issues being raised by Members across the House today are important. I trust that given the timing of the Richard Lloyd report, the Minister in her seat will make sure that they are be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. Mid Derbyshire has no banks left. Not only is that a source of frustration for local people and businesses, it really irks them because the Government stood behind the banks with public money during the financial crisis. Now we need our banks to stand with our communities. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to delivering 350 banking hubs by 2029. Belper in my constituency has one of those banking hubs. It has been a huge success, reporting over 1,500 customer interactions a week, and residents tell me that it has been a lifeline. The evidence is clear: there is huge demand for banking services. I experienced that recently when I was sent a cheque that was a peculiar shape, perhaps designed specifically so that I would not deposit it. It would not be scanned by the app, so I had to make a trip to the bank. I appreciate that more of us are using online services, but there is still a need for in-person services. Hubs like the one in Belper also drive footfall into towns. A vibrant high street is one of the things that creates a real sense of place, which I know is a priority for the Government. There are substantial places in Mid Derbyshire, such as Allestree and Spondon, which remain unserved by in-person banking. A recent constituency survey I conducted drew to my attention local people’s demand for such services. That is why I have written to Link on several occasions to ask for a review of access to cash in those areas. However, Link’s remit is not broad enough to consider banking services as a whole; it only considers access to cash. My ask of the Government, which I have written to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury about, is to broaden Link’s remit so that it can look at how people access services as a whole—not just cash, but advice and guidance when they have concerns. That is particularly important to people in rural communities and those who cannot access online services as many people have begun to do, perhaps because of disability or other factors such as internet access.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. I am sure that many Members have had the same frustrating experiences I have had when I meet a bank that is planning to close a branch. It has all this data and statistics telling us about the number of people who use that branch, but never asks how many people would use it if they knew that they could get access to it. Link also cannot tell me why, despite the measures that are in place, the percentage of people with access to cash in my constituency continues to reduce. It is also important to remember that in many of our communities, the bank branches that do exist often have very reduced hours. Business customers in particular express real frustration to me about that. I do not want to repeat the things that have been said today, but I want to pick up on scams and vulnerable constituents. Rural poverty is real. We all deal with it. Citizens Advice locally and food banks are seeing an increase in people’s need for support. Banks have a responsibility to improve financial literacy. In addition, rural transport is non-existent, as many people have touched on. Over the summer, I went out with a constituent who used a wheelchair. We had to take two buses to make the journey and, to add to her distress, one of the bus’s lifts was not working and the whole bus had to decant while she was left on the pavement. We need to remember that it is not always easy for people to get to banks. I am very conscious that the party that talks about broken high streets and broken Britain is not represented in this debate, but if we think back to the past, the bank manager was someone we knew. I have a constituent who subject to a very distressing scam involving a significant amount of money. I am confident that if they had been going into their bank branch, the staff would have known them and asked the right questions to prevent the scam in the first place—it is not about the person asking for advice. The Government know what they need to do; I hope they get on and do it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden)—who faces issues similar to those we have in Cornwall—for securing this debate. Lloyds, the last bank in Falmouth, closed in March. Big banks have been pulling their branches out of our towns and cities at great speed since covid. From the Moor to Market Street in Falmouth, the most obviously empty and degrading buildings are those that used to have banks in them. The population of Falmouth and Penryn, plus the villages, is approaching 30,000. We now have a banking hub, which opened when Lloyds closed. However, like the hub mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), our hub has only a temporary location, in the town council offices, and I am concerned that it does not have a more permanent home. None of the numerous empty buildings in Falmouth—most of which used to be banks—is decreed suitable for a more permanent banking hub. Ours is one of the 230 banking hubs now in the UK. I support the Government’s commitment to increase that number to 350—if not more—by the end of this Parliament. I hope that more of those banking hubs find a permanent home. The Post Office had been the last bastion against that change until now. Customers are directed to post offices by closing banks, but that is now changing. The franchise model that the Post Office has adopted means that it relies on bigger stores to run post offices, which leaves it vulnerable to high street closures. The post office in Truro—Cornwall’s capital—is closing in October because it resides inside a TGJones that used to be a WH Smith. Due to the Post Office insisting on finding another franchise rather than a direct store, we have to wait for a commercial procurement process for a host company, which will leave the capital of Cornwall without a post office—we do not know for how long—and vulnerable to the same thing happening again. The Post Office can justify that by saying that there is another post office just under a mile away as the crow flies, but it is a tiny shop across a dual carriageway, and it is in no way suitable to serve the capital city of Cornwall.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I know that you like good news, so I will start with some. Last week I met Stuart Miller, the chief executive of the Cumberland building society. He confirmed that the building society will keep all its branches open indefinitely—including those in Dumfries, Lockerbie, Langholm, Annan and Gretna—and that it is already seeing an uptick in customers coming from banks that have closed. My constituency—which, as you will know, Mr Wishart, is larger than any consistency in England—has seen the wholesale closure of all Lloyds and Bank of Scotland branches. We have only one Royal Bank of Scotland NatWest branch left. The branch in Biggar is about to close, and there is no real arrangement in place for what will replace it. There is very poor mobile reception, as I experienced yesterday, and there is no commitment to a free-to-access cash machine. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) made an important point, which I have also raised with the Minister’s predecessor: Link abides by the rules—it is a rules-based organisation. In Moffat in my constituency, there are technically two other cash machines—one is in a shop and never has any money in it, and the other is in another location that is not open 24/7—so we are unable to get a free-to-access cash machine in the centre of what is a very busy town. That issue needs to be looked at. As the Minister and others may know, Henry Duncan founded the world’s first savings bank in my constituency in 1810. It seems rather ironic that it was easier to access banking 200-odd years ago than it is now.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I thank the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. I will also start with some good news. When Lloyds closed the last bank in Glossop, and Halifax closed in Buxton, Link was very good, and we were able to secure banking hubs for both those major towns. Both those hubs are looking for permanent homes, which we expect to see later this year. Across the middle of my constituency, the story is very different. In New Mills, there is a community bank that is open for only five and a half hours on a Monday, and there is no access to banking for the rest of that belt. There are post offices in Chinley and Whaley Bridge, but both have been under threat and have nearly closed. We have only recently managed—touch wood—to secure their long-term futures. It is vital that my constituents have access not only to cash, which was the original impetus for this, but to face-to-face banking. That was a big issue for those who came along to hear about the banking hubs in Glossop and Buxton. The ability to talk to someone about savings, to take hard-copy documents and to talk things through makes such a massive difference for so many people. I very much welcome the Minister’s announcement of the review into access to banking, and I look forward to the outcome. I encourage the Government to consider changing the rules applying to Link, to move away from access to cash alone and towards face-to-face services. That is, as we have heard, what our communities are desperate for.

I join this debate to speak about an appalling bank heist. It is happening not just in one town but in rural towns across the country. It is not a vault being raided, and it is not cash being snatched; it is the very banking services that support our most vulnerable being taken away. Too often, people’s concerns about bank branch closures are misrepresented as issues of convenience, but they are about lives and livelihoods. Let me offer an anecdote or two in support of that argument. Jack and Jacqueline Barrass from Honiton have an adult daughter who has significant learning difficulties. Unable to remember her PIN without prompting, or to conduct telephone banking without a parent present, she relies on in-person banking. Virtual services are too complex and leave vulnerable adults like her dangerously exposed to online scams. Another constituent of mine, who is in her late 70s, had a miserable experience of using a banking hub. She wanted to pay her husband’s care insurance with cash. She was told that, because her local branch of Lloyds bank was closing, she would have to use the post office. The post office said that it could not make the payment and told her to ring Lloyds bank. After using an automated system, she gave up. She went to a banking hub, where she was reduced to tears as the helper again tried to navigate her through the Lloyds automated service. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. The figures she set out are stark: Lloyds closed 218 branches across the country last year, including in Seaton, and will close 95 more in the next year, including in Honiton, while reporting £6.7 billion of pre-tax profits. That is an outrage, and the Government need to do more than just set up an independent review into access to banking services. They need to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society get the services they need in rural regions.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. We all know that there has been a marked decline in the number of bank branches across the UK over many decades. The main message I want to get to the Minister is that the response to bank closures has focused too much on access to cash—important though that is—and not enough on the loss of face-to-face services, as my constituents know all too well. We have had bank closures in Sedbergh, and the NatWest branch in Kirkby Lonsdale closed earlier this year. It had not even been noticed that the ATM was closing, so it took far more effort than it should have done to ensure that access to cash was retained. Face-to-face banking services offer a lifeline for vulnerable people and protection against fraud and digital exclusion. Some things are simply too complex to do over the phone or through an app. Setting up powers of attorney and delegated authority has been mentioned. Anyone who has lost a partner or a parent knows the complexity of dealing with grief—there might be a mortgage to deal with, money to transfer out of a joint account or bills to continue paying from the estate. Those processes are complicated and upsetting enough without having to explain the situation over and over again to different call centre staff or spending 20 minutes listening to hold music—sometimes people just need to sit down with a member of staff. Of course, rural inequalities compound that problem; people are told to travel to another branch, and anyone who has tried to get around Morecambe and Lunesdale on the bus will know how challenging that is.

This summer I did a rural tour in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. Interestingly, a resident said to me that they had been directed to Stafford, where we are also getting bank closures. That is not a rural area; it is a town—quite urban. The issue they had is that their nearest bus stop was three miles away and they did not have good mobility. Where there are these interconnecting complex issues, rural communities in particular are being poorly served. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider access to proper local transport when making these recommendations?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I also know that other Members present struggle with broadband access. We are blessed in Morecambe and Lunesdale with Broadband for the Rural North, but that interplay of complex situations can make life so hard for people when they lose their bank branch. In Morecambe, which is a town, we did get a banking hub—I helped to secure it after the shutdown of the Halifax. I think it is working well, but, again, even in a town it cannot provide everything that is needed, although I really do appreciate it. Online banking is convenient for many people, but it does not work for everyone and everything; people still need face-to-face services like hubs or mobile banks. Services need to be reliable. The people of Sedbergh could tell us what an unreliable bank bus does to a town. I encourage the Minister to continue working closely with rural MPs on the issue, and I say gently that access to cash is not the be all and end all.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this debate. When Dad died a few years ago, I was able to go with Mum to our local bank branch to deal with all the issues that come from a bereavement. Subsequently, Barclays has closed that branch in Ely and its branch in Newmarket. That means that the residents of Ely and East Cambs no longer have that facility available to them. I am grateful that Barclays has opened a hub in Ely, but it does not provide all the services that a bank used to. I have a lot of farmers in my constituency. They need a bank branch that understands their business, the ebb and flow of their cash flow, and, in a summer like this one, the extra pressures that their businesses are under. We heard from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) that when he came back from Spain he was able to deposit a cheque online. Community groups cannot do that. As they have two signatories, they have to go to a bank or post office to deposit cheques. I heard on Sunday from someone who had gone in to pay some cash from his community group. The post office refused to take the Scottish notes, as many of my Scottish colleagues will have experienced, no doubt—that is a problem as well. As we have heard from everyone, Link just looks at access to cash. That is not the real problem any more; it is about access to that wide range of banking services.

With fraud on the rise—we are seeing quite a lot of it lately—does my hon. Friend agree that all banking hubs should have fraud-trained staff?

I agree. As we have heard already, bank scams are a real nightmare for people. If people can go into their local branch and talk to people who know them, they are much better protected against online scams. I am afraid that we have basically advised my mum not to do online banking, and not to click on any links, unless one of us is with her, because there is too much risk. If there were a local branch, things would be so much better. I call on the Minister to seriously consider widening Link’s remit so that it looks at the wider range of banking services and we can keep them in our various constituencies.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart, and a big thanks to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for raising this debate. As the Member for Strangford, I am growing increasingly concerned about the effects of bank closures on vulnerable individuals in our rural communities, because face-to-face banking is about much more than simple convenience. Local bank branches have long been an important point of social contact, particularly for older people, those with disabilities and those who struggle with technology. It is a safe place for young people to get sound advice on savings and ISAs, and a place where people learn, get to know the staff and build protection for themselves. I stress that online banking is simply not a straightforward substitute for an in-person service. Fewer bank services mean reduced footfall, as people have fewer reasons to visit town centres, and the impact of that on the high street is clear. Eleven banks have closed in my largely rural constituency, and as the MP for Strangford, I am deeply concerned about what this means for my constituents and particularly the older people in my constituency, a large proportion of whom rely on cash. The loss of local bank services will mean significantly longer journeys to access basic financial services. More must be done to ensure those in our rural communities are not left behind and continue to have unfettered access to essential banking services. Unfortunately, there is no longer a single permanent bank on the Ards peninsula where I live, and only very spotty internet services. The situation must be reversed. It is not all doom and gloom: I thank the Nationwide Building Society, which has pledged to maintain all branches until 2030. My own local branch is an example of consumer-led safe banking, and I believe that we must hold main street banks to a higher standard. The banks must do better. Rural constituents deserve the same service as city dwellers, and the rural inequality must be addressed from this house down. For my constituents in Strangford, we need to do more.

Before I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, I thank colleagues for their assistance and restraint. We have had 25 Back Benchers in for this debate.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this particularly important debate. The decline in face-to-face banking services is evident across the country—just visit any high street—but it is felt most acutely in rural areas. While the Government have taken steps to protect access to cash, protecting cash is not the same as protecting access to banking services. The number of bank and building society branches has declined dramatically, from 21,600 in 1986 to fewer than 6,900 in 2025, with more closures scheduled for 2026 and 2027. In rural areas, only 33% of people live within three miles of a bank branch, compared with 93% in urban areas. When bank branches are closed in rural market towns, it does not just inconvenience people, but can be the difference between a small business thriving and a small business failing.

One of the problems we have experienced with the Link criteria is that the town is classed as urban by the Office for National Statistics, but is actually servicing a rural community. That mismatch means that some hubs are being missed out.

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a very good point, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Small businesses also suffer from bank closures because they are not able to deposit their takings, transfer money between accounts, manage fraud or get simple advice on opening a business account. This has a large impact on small businesses in rural areas. For local charities, closures can mean the difference between banking the proceeds of a coffee morning and not banking them at all. This also demonstrates the impact of the rural premium that people in rural communities face when living their everyday lives. My constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton has felt the full consequences of the decline. Many market towns have lost all banking facilities already, and the Lloyds branch in Street is due to close next March. I have collected many signatures from concerned constituents who will be impacted by this change, and I have urged Lloyds—and will continue to do so—to reconsider the decision. I recognise that a community banking hub is expected to begin visiting Street from early 2027, and I welcome that effort to maintain some local presence of banking services, but let us be clear: a fortnightly visit from a community banker is not a substitute for a staffed bank branch. Of course, banking hubs and community bankers do have an important role to play, but they must be integrated as part of the conversation around banking services, rather than being the Government’s answer to it. In addition, the Coventry Building Society branch in Wincanton will close in nine days’ time, leaving the town without any face-to-face banking services. Coventry Building Society has informed its members that they will be able to deposit their cash at their nearest branch in Frome, but that is a 40-mile round trip, so the closure will undoubtedly affect both rural local residents and local businesses, who will now need to make alternative arrangements.

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is something immoral about banks that make such exorbitant profits money closing branches and penalising their customers?

The hon. Member makes a very good point. For people wishing to access banking services in Wincanton only the post office remains, despite the town’s continued growth, with more homes being built. Yet research from the Post Office found that 82% of consumers find it important to be able to access at least one in-person banking service, and the many small local and independent businesses that make Wincanton such a lovely market town will undoubtedly be inconvenienced. In a rural county such as Somerset a significant number of businesses are SMEs: 78% employ fewer than five people. As the Countryside Alliance outlined earlier this year in its submission to the Treasury’s call for evidence on access to banking services, cash plays “an important role across much of the rural economy.” Business owners in rural areas are forced to travel further to bank their takings, deposit cash and obtain change. That reduces their productivity, increases fuel costs and adds to their administrative burden when they already operate on tight margins. SMEs, on average, deposit cash twice per month, but rural businesses may now postpone cashing in until they have more to deposit in order to avoid additional travel. However, that makes them more vulnerable to a growing rural crime epidemic. The total cost of rural crime in 2025 was estimated by the National Farmers Union Mutual to be £41.5 million, and increasingly sophisticated and organised gangs are operating in rural areas. If rural economies are to thrive it is vital that rural businesses are not put at a disadvantage simply due to their location. That is why Liberal Democrats in the other place tabled an amendment to the Financial Services and Markets Bill that would require the Treasury to assess alternative frameworks, including the post office banking framework, for providing access to banking and cash services. In many rural areas the post office network has become a lifeline. It is often the only local place to make cash withdrawals, deposits, and everyday banking transactions. During the summer recess I was delighted to support the reopening of two post offices in my constituency. Henstridge post office recently opened after local residents Lesley and Andy Scard and their neighbours Barry and Helen Howlett worked tirelessly to reopen the much-missed and much-needed community shop and post office. In Somerton the long-awaited post office has also returned, based inside the Stationery House, after Malcolm Adams stepped up and refurbished part of his shop to accommodate it. However, many local post offices are still under threat and we have seen closures recently in Butleigh and Charlton Adam. Following last year’s Green Paper, the Government must commit to rural-proofing the post office and look at ways in which the post office can drive wider access to banking as part of the Treasury’s ongoing access to banking services review. Without adequate investment post offices cannot replace bank branches. Will the Minister commit to properly rural-proof the post office network so that postmasters are adequately resourced to take on the increased demand for local banking, rather than forced to absorb the cost when they are providing such a vital service? The Liberal Democrats support the introduction of a fair banking Act to tackle financial exclusion. We have committed to the introduction of a national financial inclusion strategy that would require both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to have regard for financial inclusion, such as by protecting access to cash in remote areas and supporting banking hubs. Of course, the impact of bank closures is compounded by a deeper problem of digital exclusion. Across the country 1.7 million households have no broadband or mobile internet at home, around 2.4 million people cannot complete a single basic online task such as opening an internet browser, and over 5 million employed adults cannot complete essential digital tasks at work. Basic digital skills are set to become the UK’s largest skills gap by 2030. With the cost of living still biting, up to 1 million people have cut back or cancelled their internet packages altogether in the past year, while banks push them to access services online. In rural Somerset, patchy mobile signal and frustratingly slow broadband are not just an inconvenience; they are the difference between banking and not banking at all. Older and disabled residents, and those with visual impairments, are too often advised to download an app as if that were an appropriate solution; instead, it simply causes a further barrier. Rural communities are not asking for special treatment or to be treated differently. They ask for a fair formula so that they are not left behind. Face-to-face banking, a functioning post office network and reliable connectivity are not luxuries; they are part of the basic infrastructure of rural life. Will the Minister commit to rural-proof banking policy and to bring forward without further delay a national financial inclusion strategy that genuinely supports rural communities? Unreliable access to face-to-face banking stymies economic growth and drives people and businesses out of rural communities. Somerset cannot wait, and neither can rural Britain.

Thank you for your leadership, Mr Wishart. I welcome the Minister back to her position as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for the second time. It is a great pleasure to see her in her place. Much more importantly, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this important debate. The fact that 25 Back Benchers have contributed illustrates just how important the subject is to our constituents. The debate has also illustrated the fact that the nature of banking in the UK is evolving quite fast. According to data from Finder, just under 30% of adults used online or remote banking in 2006. In 2024, that figure had increased to 88%. It is simply the case that fewer people are using face-to-face banking services, but that does not mean we should get rid of branches altogether. As we have heard, many people still rely on them. We need to strike the right balance between allowing our banking system to evolve with changing consumer habits and protecting those who rely on traditional banking services, such as vulnerable people and local businesses. Before I go further, it is valuable to provide some context to this debate. According to Which?, 6,871 bank branches have closed since 2015, meaning that 69% of branches closed in that period. Which? also found that 56 of our constituencies, from Norwich North to Mid Bedfordshire, are now without a single bank branch, and that 101 constituencies have just one branch left. The South Devon constituency is part of that category, following the recent closure of the Lloyds Bank branch in Totnes. As the hon. Lady set out, the impact on all her constituents, but especially the vulnerable and older constituents she serves, is significant. In the increasingly digital world in which we live, it is easy to forget that many people struggle to use technology. The Government’s own statistics suggest that 1.3 million adults in the UK are deemed to be digitally excluded. Although that has decreased from 6.8 million in 2017, there are still a significant number of people who find the digital alternatives difficult to navigate.

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that some people who would otherwise be willing and able do not have access to these services? Many of my constituents do not have good enough mobile service to operate apps.

My right hon. Friend raises another big argument that we could have on the issue of rural broadband, but it is worth making the point regarding internet connectivity that I was just coming on to. I know this is as painful in other constituencies as it is in Wyre Forest. According to the financial lives 2024 survey, adults living in rural areas were, “disproportionately more likely to report having poor or no connectivity.” We must also remember that many of our local businesses rely on face-to-face banking services. According to the House of Commons Library, an average small business deposits cash twice a month, withdraws cash once a month and gets change for their cash registers once a month. It is worth bearing in mind that, typically, we have about 3,500 businesses per constituency, so an awful lot of people rely on these services. I remember the impact that was felt in 2015 when HSBC closed the last bank in Bewdley in my constituency; people were utterly dismayed. Happily, the post office stepped in and was able to help resolve the issues, but since then we have now discovered that that the post office is under threat. We are working on it, but it demonstrates the point that things are changing very quickly. There is also a more subtle outcome of a sharp reduction in bank branches: the relationship between a bank and the local economy is being dramatically reduced, which has implications for our wider economy. Local branch managers living in a community, providing banking services to local businesses and understanding local economic opportunities as well as pressures, are well placed to understand the commercial value of a loan application by a local business. That is important. An application for a business loan is usually something that business owners and managers want to get in place as fast as they can, but the reality is that applications for smaller business loans now take an average of nine months to be approved. That is not good for our local economies. Furthermore, banks need to lend money. That is the business they are in. Each loan creates a banking asset. Indeed, 95% of the money in circulation is the result of banks lending it into existence through fractional reserve banking. It is in the interest of both our banks and our economy that they lend, but if it takes too long, others will step in. That can be good, but it can be bad. Private debt is gaining traction alongside private equity. Meanwhile, unregulated loan notes have been central to some recent mis-selling issues at the smaller end of the market. That is not the fault of the banks, but the lack of local banking services opens doors to alternatives, not all of which are properly understood, risk-assessed and regulated. However, we must recognise that banks are businesses. I do not want to be an apologist for banks, but they do provide a very important service, which they have to do in a profitable way. They have to make commercial decisions, and they have to consider the footfall in their branches and the take-up of digital banking.

The hon. Member says that banks have to make profits. Last year, Lloyds made £6.7 billion in profit. Does he agree that £6.7 billion is such an incredible amount of money that asking banks to put more money into maintaining services for customers across rural Britain is not an exceptional or particularly demanding ask? The money is there. Nobody needs to be making £6.7 billion of profit a year.

As I say, I am not an apologist for banks, and I am keen to ensure that we get a balanced argument. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is an awful lot of money, but it all comes down to what should be the right and proportionate response. I do not disagree with her fundamental point, but the question is slightly more complicated. I will give the hon. Lady an example from my constituency. Not so long ago, I went into a branch of Santander. It was a Thursday, and I was banking a cheque. I was the fourth customer that the bank teller had seen that week. It was utterly dismal, and that was in the centre of Kidderminster. The branch was closed the following week. There are issues for banks—whether they should necessarily be opening branches that could get one or two customers coming in a week. There is a balance to be struck. If a branch is not viable, should the bank keep it open? We must look at the other opportunities. The last Conservative Government recognised that and were committed to retaining vital banking services. That is why we provided a system of free and convenient access to banks through the post office branch network, why we introduced protections for access to cash and why we enabled the development of banking hubs through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. I am glad that the Government have continued our positive trajectory, especially through their commitment to 350 new banking hubs by 2030, but I also welcome the independent access to banking services review chaired by Richard Lloyd. We are interested to see its outcomes and recommendations, but would be grateful if the Minister gave us a clue as to when it will report. Decisive Government action could ensure support for underserved communities in good time and mitigate the impact of bank branch closures. This and previous debates on this subject have shown just how much Members support bank branches, especially in rural areas. Members have emphasised how many of their constituents and local businesses still rely on those services, which is especially true in rural areas such as South Devon. It is vital that the Government step up to support communities who lack adequate banking services provision. The publication of the access to banking services review will help to identify the next steps, but many people will be frustrated that the Government are undertaking another review and not taking action. As the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said, people are “impatient for change”. When it comes to this issue, our constituents do not want to wait much longer.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for securing this debate. I recognise that she has been a consistent advocate for her constituency on this matter. I was going to make the point that access to banking attracts considerable interest from across the House. However, I hardly need to say that, given the number of hon. Members who have attended today, or who have personally raised this issue with me while I have been in this role—or indeed who raised it with the former Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, as the hon. Member for South Devon did recently. I shall endeavour to respond to all the points that have been raised today. I am, I fear, under pressure to do so in a dynamic fashion—following the remarks of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart)—so I will do my best. I am particularly grateful to all those Members who have shared the practical and, in some cases, very personal circumstances of their constituents—that is especially important. I recognise that in rural communities—the subject matter of this debate—the loss of a branch can make everyday banking much harder. That was recognised by the hon. Member for South Devon, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins), for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge), and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), and plenty more besides—too many to name. It is right to acknowledge, as many hon. Members have, that the way people bank has changed significantly in recent years. Many customers now benefit from the convenience and flexibility of online and mobile banking. For many people, those changes have made managing their finances easier, more convenient and also more accessible. However, it is important that we recognise that while digital services work well for many customers, many people still need to access banking services in person—a point that has been set out thoughtfully and, in some cases, very movingly by hon. Members today. Those include some members of our communities who are older or may be more vulnerable, and those who face barriers to digital banking, not least because of connectivity—a point well made by the hon. Members for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth). Many small businesses also continue to rely on face-to-face support and cash services. Around 3.3 million current account holders did not bank online or through a mobile app in 2024. That is a significant number. As has been detailed in this debate, branch closures can have a significant impact on communities, especially where transport links are limited—even on a good run, as the hon. Member for South Devon put it—and where towns provide essential services for a much wider rural area. That is exactly why access to banking services remains important. As a Government, we are committed to ensuring that people who need in-person banking can continue to access essential services. As the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak)—who is no longer here—recognised, access to cash is protected by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, but access to banking services is currently not. That is why in May the Government announced an independent review into access to banking services chaired by Richard Lloyd. That review will assess whether changes in access to in-person banking services are causing detriment. It will gather evidence on the extent of that detriment, and look into which groups are affected and which of those are most affected. As hon. Members know, that review has been gathering evidence from consumers, businesses, charities, community organisations, local authorities and industry right across the UK. It will consider whether current arrangements are meeting the needs of customers and communities. That includes banking hubs and other alternative banking services. I know that many Members—not least those in this Chamber—would like immediate answers to these questions, but it is important that interventions in this space are based on robust data and evidence, and a clear understanding of where the problems are and who they affect. That is why the Government’s review matters. I am not making a case for it to be a substitute for action; it is the evidence base that will enable the Government to act in the right way. Importantly, as Members have said, the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is currently in the other place, includes a power that will allow the Government to take action to protect access to banking services. Together, the review and the Bill will enable the Government to respond swiftly and proportionately to the results and evidence from the review.

Banking hubs themselves came out of an industry response from the NatWest executive. Does the Minister agree that we must present the information from the Lloyd review to the banking groups, be clear about what we want, and give them the opportunity to respond and provide a solution, as they did with banking hubs, so that we can perhaps avoid a more heavy-handed governmental approach?

I do not want to prejudge the way that we will deal with the conclusions of the review. In response to one of the questions that I was asked, I can say that the Lloyd review’s results and report will be published next month. We can expect it in that timeframe. The Government’s commitment is further reflected in our support for the roll-out of 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. I am pleased to report that we continue to make real progress against that target. More than 280 banking hubs have been announced, and 240 are already open. As hon. Members know, they provide assisted cash services and allow customers to receive face-to-face support from community bankers representing individual banks. I very much welcome the progress that has been made on the roll-out and on expanding the services available via the hubs. Community banker services now more closely resemble those of traditional branches.

Island communities like mine simply do not fit the parameters of banking hubs. The population of Uist, for example, is half the size of that required for a banking hub. Will the Minister consider island solutions in the roll-out of new banking hubs?

We are considering the entirety of the geography of the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend would want us to. His point relates to not just access to cash but access to banking services, and it is important that the Government take action in that area. Let me go back to the services now available via banking hubs. Customers can now get help not only with account opening and changes of address, complaints and powers of attorney, but with things such as bereavement support and concerns about fraud and scams, which have been raised in the debate. They can also get help with digital banking. We and the industry recognise that digital banking services are not always completely intuitive, so some people may need assistance to use them. Many hubs are piloting further improvements, including Saturday opening hours and customer liaison officers. A number of hon. Members raised concerns about how decisions are made about the location of banking hubs under the existing legislation, and whether the current arrangements adequately reflect the circumstances of rural communities in particular. Decisions about the location of banking hubs are made independently by Link, following an access to cash assessment. Link assesses a range of criteria and factors, including population size, vulnerability, transport links, the local retail environment and post office facilities. There is a real strength of feeling across the House about how those criteria are applied, and many feel that there should be a wider consideration of access to face-to-face banking services, beyond access to cash alone— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).