Treasury Committee
Oral evidence: Financial Inclusion Strategy, HC 13
Tuesday 9 June 2026
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 9 June 2026.
Members present: Dame Meg Hillier (Chair); Dame Harriett Baldwin; Chris Coghlan; Jim Dickson; John Glen; John Grady; Yuan Yang.
Questions 199 - 311
Witnesses
I: Sarah Pritchard, Deputy Chief Executive, Financial Conduct Authority.
II: Rachel Blake MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury; Dan Rusbridge, Deputy Director, Personal Finances and Funds Team, HM Treasury; and Alanna Barber, Deputy Director, Banking and Credit Team, HM Treasury.
Witness: Sarah Pritchard.
Q199 Chair: Welcome to the Treasury Committee on 9 June 2026. We are here today to continue our scrutiny of the Government’s financial inclusion strategy. I am delighted to have two panels in front of us today. The first has Sarah Pritchard, who is the deputy chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority.
Before we go on to the financial inclusion strategy, Ms Pritchard, I just wanted to thank the FCA for the very detailed letter that you sent to this Committee in response to our letter. We received it yesterday and it was published earlier this morning, as it contained market-sensitive information. It is a really useful and detailed letter. A couple of things jump out from it. One is the work that you have done tackling some of the claims management companies and how they have handled consumers who have contacted them about pursuing a claim for mis-sold motor finance. I wondered if there was anything you wanted to say about the work that you have done there and whether you have enough powers to tackle some of the bad players in this sector.
Sarah Pritchard: Our aim here is really simple. We want to ensure that consumers can get access to fair, timely compensation, and we want to see a healthy motor finance market. Consumers have been waiting a long time, and they must be compensated one way or another. We believe that our scheme remains the quickest and fairest way to do that, and we will robustly defend the challenges.
We are being really straightforward that the challenges will result in delay. During the delay that is now in place, we have some really clear messages for consumers. It is really important that consumers know that they can complain for free. They do not need to use a claims management company. They certainly do not need to use multiple claims management companies. A claims management company could take up to 30% or more of the compensation owed.
We know that consumers are complaining about whether they have consented to sign up. Already this calendar year, the Information Commissioner’s Office has had 6 million complaints around nuisance marketing. This is something that we are taking very seriously.
We have a very clear message for consumers. If they wish to exit, they can. If they are being charged unreasonable fees to exit, they have the right to ask for a free, independent check. This is something that we take very seriously as we consider the consequences of the delay through the legal challenge.
Q200 Chair: You have 80 cases under review by your supervisor, but you have already taken quite a lot of action. Over 1,000 misleading adverts have been removed or amended in the last couple of years, since January 2024. I believe there are examples of people clicking on an advert and then finding that they have signed up to a claims management company. How are you tackling any of these particular challenges with these online adverts?
Sarah Pritchard: As you say, there are real concerns around how consumers have been signed up to claims management companies. Some consumers say that they did not provide consent to do so, with some having been signed up for multiple CMCs. That is resulting in bad outcomes for consumers, who will lose some of the compensation they are owed.
We have launched a taskforce jointly with other authorities, including the SRA, the ICO and the Advertising Standards Authority. We have also launched a market study looking at whether claims management companies are delivering fair value in this market. That is absolutely something that we will keep the Committee updated on.
If I go back to our very simple messages for consumers, you do not need to use a claims management company. If you have concerns that you have been signed up without consent, you can complain. If you are being charged an unreasonable exit fee, you can ask for an independent check of that.
Q201 Chair: Thank you. There are a couple of other things that jumped out. Regarding the cost of all this, how much is it costing or has it cost the FCA so far? What are your projections for what it is going to cost to put this scheme in place and to deal with the legal challenges?
Sarah Pritchard: As we set out in our letter, we estimate costs up to the end of March this year at £20.5 million. The legal challenge will add extra costs. I want to be straightforward that the legal challenge will add delay and extra costs to the scheme as a whole.
If the scheme goes ahead, we believe the delay will result in payments not before 2027, but of course we need to consider alternative options, too. We have a clear message for firms, which is that they need to prepare for all eventualities. They also need to prepare for the event that there is no scheme and no pause of complaints.
Our estimates are that, if there is a complaints-led approach, it will probably cost about £6 billion more and take three years longer. The detail is as we have set out in the letter. That is why we are considering all options. There is obviously a live legal challenge.
One of the things that we are exploring—and we would be keen to seek your views and get your support if we go down this route—is whether there are any options for consumers who wish to receive money now. Particularly in a rising household budget situation, if consumers wish to receive compensation now, we are exploring what the options for that might be.
Q202 Chair: The delay was the other really big concern, but thank you for outlining that.
Finally, you briefly mentioned just there—and you say very clearly in the letter—that while some firms have very much been on this and getting schemes in place, a number are not as ready as you would expect. Can you name any names? Are these big players in the market? How concerned are you about that?
Sarah Pritchard: There is a general message, which is that we have now had implementation plans from over 95% of the market. The really clear message is that firms need to prepare to be operationally ready. Of course, now that we have the challenges, we need to plan for a range of scenarios. We have a big central team. We are answering questions daily around supervisory readiness, and that remains a key area of focus for all firms.
Q203 Chair: Of course, if there is not a scheme, people can go through the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is itself being reviewed as we speak. Do you think it would have the capacity? It is not your organisation, but what could you see as the potential challenges for the Financial Ombudsman Service having to deal with this, instead of a redress scheme?
Sarah Pritchard: We need to take this step by step. There is a legal challenge. If the scheme is upheld, we believe that this will delay the payouts into 2027. If it is not, then we need to consider what the options may be. There are options around consulting on a different scheme, but we already have, of course, consulted very widely on the scheme that we currently have. Alternatively, we will need to go down the complaints-led approach.
I sit on the FOS oversight committee. I am confident that we would work very closely with the FOS to ensure that it would be operationally able to deal with those complaints, but of course we have set out that we think a complaints-led approach would cost £6 billion more and probably take three years longer.
Q204 Chair: Do you think all of this work, if it goes on longer? Will it stop the FCA doing work in other areas, or are you able to juggle all of these things even though this is a big challenge?
Sarah Pritchard: As Nikhil set out in the 17-page letter that we sent yesterday, of course this has consequences. We have had to pivot resource to deal with the immediate legal challenge. We think that the immediate legal challenge will cost us around £2.7 million extra.
Of course, if this goes on longer, we will need to consider how we move our resources internally. It will come at some cost. There is a trade-off that we will need to make, but it is important here. Consumers have been waiting a very long time to be compensated; one way or another, they need to be compensated.
Q205 John Glen: Before I speak, I need to declare that I am a member of the Financial Inclusion Commission and a non-exec director of Open Banking Ltd.
I just wanted to follow up on that point about capacity. People will look at this and think, “The FCA is trying to sort this mess out and get consumers redress”, but you are hampered by this right of due process and legal challenge that is extending the timeframe. You must be very frustrated that you have to operate within the law that exists.
What would need to change to make this definition of the redress process much swifter, and probably give consumers more confidence and certainty sooner as well?
Sarah Pritchard: Of course, we respect the right of parties to challenge us. It is important. We are an accountable regulator, so we absolutely respect the right of those three lenders and one limited company, represented by Courmacs Legal, to bring a challenge.
That said, one of the points that Nikhil has been very clear on in the letter is to look to the opportunity, through the current Financial Services and Markets Bill, around reform to the Consumer Credit Act. There are important reforms there around ensuring that the system in future is better able to deal swiftly with cases where there are mass redress events. Ultimately, that is the goal here on a future-looking basis.
Q206 John Glen: What specifically would you want to see in terms of legislative change that would affect that outcome?
Sarah Pritchard: We would like to see the changes that are proposed in the Financial Services and Markets Bill go through. There are proposals there that would enable us to deal with a mass redress event more quickly. As those reforms go through, it is really important that Parliament is also very clear on any balance of risk and risk appetite that is entailed in any change of approach going forwards.
Q207 John Glen: Do you think it goes far enough? Are there things that you would like to see in there, which are not there at the moment, that would help further?
Sarah Pritchard: The reforms that deal with the Financial Ombudsman Service, and, critically, section 404, are the right reforms to see through. There is a broader strategic question for all of us. In circumstances where markets are changing at such pace, with technological developments and advancements, it is clearly important for consumers that good outcomes are delivered. That is key to our consumer duty. Also, in the event that there are issues, they need to be spotted and addressed swiftly so that the system as a whole works much more swiftly for consumers. As I said, consumers have been waiting a long time here for compensation, and they need to be compensated.
Q208 John Glen: Sorry to press it, but this is a really important point. For the FCA to be able to act swiftly, you need to ensure that sometimes statutory instruments and small legislative changes happen quickly. Are you content with the speed with which what you need translates into legislation in Parliament? It is best to be honest and truthful here.
Chair: We all know it does not always work well in Parliament.
Sarah Pritchard: It is really important to get those reforms to the Consumer Credit Act through. The Consumer Credit Act is 1974. There have been reviews of it for a number of years. It is really important that it now gets through.
Chair: Thank you very much. We have the Minister in the next panel, so we may ask her about some of these points as well.
Q209 John Grady: I should declare that I have a relative who works for a large mutual.
I suspect that the timetable you have set out does not take into account the fact that the judicial review could then go to the Court of Appeal if it is a point of law, and then the Supreme Court, so this could take even longer. Does this not emphasise the need for reforms to ensure that the scope for challenge over extensively consulted-on decisions for the benefit of consumers can be dealt with much more swiftly?
Sarah Pritchard: I would just repeat what I said earlier, in that we want to see the redress system work more swiftly for consumers. The reforms that are in the Bill should help with that, with earlier visibility of potential mass redress events.
Also, going forward, we have the consumer duty. As you know, we are leaning hard on the consumer duty to drive good outcomes. We are working much more closely than we ever have with the Financial Ombudsman Service so that there is much earlier visibility of where there may be issues in markets. It is the combination of the reforms to the legislation, the changes to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and also seeing good standards in the markets that will help drive quicker resolution.
Q210 Chair: We have perhaps been a bit more muted than we might otherwise be on changes to the law at speed, but we understand that these things take time, although it sometimes takes too long for consumers.
We will move on now to what we are really here to talk about, which is the financial inclusion strategy of the Government. Obviously, you have an important role in this. It was just after the general election, in November 2024, that the Chancellor, in your remit letter, wrote to you that you had to “have regard”, in the jargon, to financial inclusion. How do you see that in practical terms? What has changed since that letter arrived?
Sarah Pritchard: First, with or without “have regard”, we take financial inclusion really seriously at the FCA. Helping consumers navigate their financial lives, which has a key financial inclusion element, is front and centre of our FCA strategy. It is one of our four key strategic themes. We take it seriously. We are committed to it. What the financial inclusion “have regard” has given us is an ability to really lean in and take system leadership where we need to convene other people together to help drive inclusion.
Q211 Chair: Can you give a specific example?
Sarah Pritchard: Just last week, we had three roundtables. One was on access to credit, which was a showcase of how there has been partnership between mainstream lenders and other parts of the sector that can offer credit. We had a roundtable on SME finance. We also had colleagues in Scotland talking about vulnerability and issues specifically in Scotland.
These are really good examples of where we are leaning in and convening other partners together to help either showcase what is possible under the current regulatory framework or break down barriers. At the moment, in the FCA we have a number of different stakeholders in the building doing an open finance sprint, thinking about mortgages and how the mortgage market can be opened up safely to more consumers
It is that convening approach that the financial inclusion “have regard” has given us that is new. It sits very firmly within our strategy where, across all of our strategic priorities at the FCA, we are really committed to working with others to try to drive some of that system change.
On financial inclusion, we do not own all the policy drivers here, so it is really important that this is a strategy owned by Government. There are a range of different factors at play: debt advise, financial capability, technology and technological advances, so it is very important that there is a system-wide response.
Q212 Chair: You are having roundtables, and that is important of course, but then you have to make decisions about things. As you say, it is not all in your remit. Can you give us an example of where you have had a discussion and a roundtable with people and it actually led to a decision by the FCA to do something differently?
Sarah Pritchard: There are a number of specific initiatives in the strategy that we are working on. We have worked in support of Fair4All Finance and Monzo; you may have seen the small sum lending pilots that were announced and launched yesterday. We have made our innovation services available to support that sort of thing. We did not need to in that environment, but we are very much providing those services, if that is needed, to test then scale.
We launched our mutuals development unit in December, as you know, really strengthening our focus on mutuals and how they can provide greater support to consumers, particularly in local communities. We strengthened our senior leadership by bringing in the prior chief operating officer at the Newcastle Building Society, who joined us just last month to give us additional senior bandwidth and support for how we can encourage greater innovation in mutuals.
Those are practical, tangible examples of some of the changes that we are making, and of how we are working with others to drive change.
Q213 Chair: You said that some of the drivers of this change sit outside the FCA. What are the most important things that sit outside? Do you need any more powers to help you deliver on the financial inclusion strategy, or are you content with the arrangement as it is?
Sarah Pritchard: One of the things that is worth touching on is that the approach within the strategy is quite deliberate in focusing on action and on piloting, testing and learning before scale. I know that is something that has been of interest, particularly as it involves partnership between industry, providers, regulators and consumer groups. That is the right approach. If there is to be tangible change for consumers, it is important that there are propositions that are commercially viable for firms.
We very much need to work alongside firms as they pilot, test and then scale, but there may be some decisions around scale that would require further regulation or legislative solutions.
Where we can act quickly, we do. Workplace savings is a very good example of that. We put out a statement last year talking about how workplace savings schemes can be delivered by employers to their employees under the current regulatory framework without any need for regulatory change.
Q214 Chair: You are trying to work within the powers you have, but you are alert to the fact that you might need new powers or responsibilities. Are you having conversations with the relevant Minister on those issues as you go?
Sarah Pritchard: Yes. The approach of piloting and testing before scaling is the right one. It is really important here to focus on action so that this is a strategy with action.
An awful lot is possible within the current regulatory framework. We have our consumer duty very much there to set out good outcomes for retail consumers. We have a clear policy plan around helping consumers with thin credit files have greater data sharing with the credit rating agencies. I believe most of the policy levers are already delivered or are in train, but of course we will keep in mind whether there is a need for any further scale and if that requires a different solution.
Q215 Chair: One of the things that we have often noticed on this Committee is that, as there are different Governments over different times, when you get a new Government coming in, they have a flurry of writing to ask you to “have regard” to things. Do you know how many “have regard” responsibilities you have? It is not a trick question. You might not know the answer, but do you know roughly how many you have now? We have lost track.
Sarah Pritchard: We have a number of “have regards”. I can follow up in writing. Sometimes over 80 are quoted. We do not need a “have regard” to take financial inclusion seriously. One of our key strategic pillars is helping consumers navigate their financial lives. We have a workplan every year, and we will have a workplan for the next four years. We want consumers to be able to better withstand a change of circumstance, to have a greater ability to save and invest, and a better experience with financial services. We take it seriously.
Q216 Chair: You have over 80 “have regards”. We have all slightly lost count of exactly where that has got to, so how do you prioritise? Is it just because a new Government come in and say, “Have regard for this”, that that goes up the list? Are there ones that you would just like to get rid of now? How high up the list is financial inclusion? You have made a good fist of saying that this is core work for you, but you have a lot of other “have regards” to have regard to.
Sarah Pritchard: As you know and as we have spoken about regularly before the Committee, we are really proud of our five-year strategy that sets the direction of travel in our key areas of focus for the next four years. We are one year in. Our strategy and our statutory objectives guide where we focus our efforts and our work. We are focusing on growth and innovation, helping consumers, fighting crime, which has an impact on consumers, and being a smarter regulator.
As I said, the “have regard” for financial inclusion helps us open doors. It helps us lean in and convene others together in circumstances where that might have been difficult before. It very much sits strategically with the priority that we have across the organisation at the moment, which is leaning in where we see a problem. If there is a need for regulatory change, we want to hear it because now is the moment, as we shift to outcomes-focused regulation, to set the standards for the future.
I do not personally think that we need the “have regard” in order to concentrate on financial inclusion. We set our strategy, which guides us for the next five years. One of the key parts of the Financial Services and Markets Bill is the requirement on regulators to have a strategy to set out what their areas of focus are. I am really proud that we have our current strategy that does that.
Q217 John Grady: My constituency has very high levels of poverty. If a firm excludes certain consumers because they are higher risk or less profitable, does that engage with consumer duty?
Sarah Pritchard: Our consumer duty sets out expectations for firms to deliver good outcomes for consumers, but we cannot mandate firms to provide a commercial service. That is an area of tension that has been explored before.
We want to make sure that firms consider vulnerable customers, particularly as they are designing products, and that they are thinking about consumer journeys at the get-go, but we cannot require or mandate firms to serve groups of consumers. There is no legal, universal right to a bank account in this country.
That said, from our Financial Lives survey data, which is a really landmark survey that we carry out extensively every two years, we see that the number of unbanked consumers in 2024 is below a million for the very first time. We know that there are basic bank account services that are provided; we are currently doing a supervisory review of how those services are being offered, and we will publish our findings on that shortly.
Q218 John Grady: Some of these things, such as a bank account or contents insurance for a flat, are basic financial products that everyone needs to participate in society, just like electricity, gas and food, in a way. The consumer duty means you cannot mandate anyone to provide products to customers, in particular if a product is unaffordable for the customer. What do we do about that?
Sarah Pritchard: We have talked before, particularly in the provision of banking services report that we did within the last few years, about the focus on those who are unbanked, and the focus on the provision of banking services. We called out that there is no legal, universal right to a bank account in the UK, but of course we have really shone a focus, through the consumer duty, on how firms are treating consumers. It is not a full answer to your question in the sense that there are limits to our reach. Whether to provide a service or a product is very much a commercial decision for firms.
Q219 John Grady: If I paraphrased your answer, would it be broadly as follows: the FCA cannot force financial institutions to provide basic core financial products to people, but the Government would do well to consider some sort of mandating or social tariff, if you like, for core financial products, or some solution along those lines.
Sarah Pritchard: It would very much be for Government and Parliament. If that is what the Government and Parliament wish to achieve, it would absolutely be necessary to switch to that mandation.
Q220 Dame Harriett Baldwin: One of the most exclusive financial products is access to financial advice. Something like 90% of the population do not get financial advice. I know you have been trying to take steps to make that a more inclusive product. Could you update the Committee on that?
Sarah Pritchard: One of our really landmark reforms has been targeted support. The legal mechanism for that went live on 6 April this year. That was a bank holiday, but on the first working day we had already authorised some firms to deliver it.
That will enable firms to make specific suggestions and advice to consumers on investment and pension decisions. We are really hoping that it will help to deal with that advice gap. As you say, only about 9% of adults receive full, regulated financial advice. We know that consumers are asking for more help and guidance. We believe that targeted support is really important in helping drive better decision-making for consumers.
We are also doing some work on simplified advice, because we know that some consumers will need more than the targeted support suggestions around investments. They will need some regulated financial advice, but on a narrow set of circumstances. We are also looking at making that easier.
Q221 Dame Harriett Baldwin: What will success look like in terms of financial inclusion in this area?
Sarah Pritchard: We want to see consumers better able to save and invest, so we will be tracking, through the Financial Lives data, the number of consumers who have savings products, the number of consumers who are invested, the number of consumers who demonstrate risk appetite to invest and hold an investment product, and the number of consumers who are receiving some form of regulated financial advice.
Those are all signs of success. Our data shows us that there are people with risk appetite to invest, but they are keeping their money in cash. Equally, the flipside is that there are people who have a lower risk appetite and are also investing in higher-risk investments. It is important that we look at this investment aim in the round. It will not be right for all consumers, but it is certainly right for some.
Q222 Jim Dickson: One of the most important products for people who are under financial stress is small sum loans of under £1,000. These are standard among community finance providers. Obviously, we are looking to get mainstream lenders to try to take that up now. You talked about the pilot that you got going under the leadership of Fair4All Finance, which is brilliant. How will you evaluate success? If it is successful, can we expect mainstream lenders to roll this out as a standard product?
Sarah Pritchard: It was really pleasing to see that launch yesterday. As you said, it was led by Fair4All Finance. I know that you had Kate Pender here before you not so long ago. Kate was talking about success being not just one provider piloting but many. The pilot approach is the right one but I hope to see approaches such as that really scale.
In the consumer finance market in the round, we see a number of small firms, and not many of those small firms are taking up some of our innovation offerings. We are really making an effort at the FCA. We are proud of our innovation services, but we are not resting on our laurels. We are making an effort to get out and about to those consumer finance firms to explain how the FCA can support them. We are running open-door events at 7 am and 7 pm. We will be in Portsmouth later this week. That is so we can get that message out to smaller firms in their communities that might also be able to provide some of these offerings.
Q223 Jim Dickson: If I could just press you, what would a successful pilot look like and what are you looking for around take-up, number of loans, ability to repay and all those sorts of things?
Sarah Pritchard: Success would look like the pilot working well for consumers. Obviously, when we consider credit, it is important that credit is affordable, that consumers can make informed decisions around their credit needs, and also that they can afford to repay.
The other aspect to success that we know has been a factor of caution in years gone by is firms feeling confident that they can provide it, confident that, in the event of complaints, those complaints are handled swiftly and predictably. That is why the broader context of the reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service to deliver predictable outcomes for firms and good outcomes for consumers is also important in building the confidence for firms to do things differently here.
Q224 Jim Dickson: Excellent. Thank you. I just have a couple of other very quick areas. On the issue of referrals and referral pilots, clearly it is helpful sometimes for mainstream providers to refer to other providers that might be able to do a better job with particular types of consumers. Is there a possible problem here with buck-passing whereby too many mainstream providers simply refer on and do not develop the products themselves? How are you going to prevent that from happening?
Sarah Pritchard: The question of referral is something where it is important to look at that outcome that you have talked about, but also at how you can have confidence that mainstream lenders can refer to other lenders without being concerned about how the complaints framework would operate in future.
It is important that mainstream firms deliver well for consumers, and also that others have confidence to develop products. Those sorts of relationships and partnerships are something that we would like to see more of.
Q225 Jim Dickson: That is excellent. We will obviously wait to see what happens on that.
Finally, on “buy now, pay later” and the framework you are introducing in July, which is welcome on many levels, is there a risk that, by introducing the framework, we are going to reduce access to that product and thereby leave some consumers worse off?
Sarah Pritchard: As you say, the framework goes live on 15 July. Going back to your earlier point, it has taken many years to come through legislation before it comes into play.
When we developed the regulatory framework, we thought very carefully about the balance, because we want to ensure that the “buy now, pay later” market continues to thrive. It delivers important services for many consumers.
That said, there are some consumers who do not understand what they are getting into. There are some consumers for whom this level of debt is unaffordable, so there will be some consumers who will, going forward, not be able to receive “buy now, pay later”, but we think it is important that appropriate affordability assessments are carried out, that consumers have the ability to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service, and, importantly, that they are supported through our regulatory framework if they get into debt, with free signposting to debt advice, for example.
Q226 Jim Dickson: You will be reporting on how the framework is working, presumably, and we and you can make a judgment on whether people are being treated fairly.
Sarah Pritchard: We will, absolutely. As I said, we thought through the balance very carefully as we developed that regulatory framework. We want the market to thrive. We also know that it is important for consumer protection. There are a number of people for whom “buy now, pay later” is unaffordable, and they need to be supported.
Q227 Chair: What is the timetable for getting to that reporting? If it comes in in July, will it be in six months or a year that you look to see the impact? How long will it take to come through if there are any problems?
Sarah Pritchard: The regime goes live on 15 July. There are a number of firms that are already in our temporary permission regime, so we know that they will be continuing to provide “buy now, pay later” after that date.
We will review it regularly. We track our strategy outcomes annually, and this will be an area that we focus on alongside all of our other areas of focus. As I said, this is one aspect of whether consumers are able to receive affordable credit when they need it. It sits alongside the small sum lending pilot. “Buy now, pay later” is also important, as well as encouraging other firms to do more referrals. We will be looking at this in the round.
Q228 Chair: Are you confident that you will see quite quickly if there is a problem?
Sarah Pritchard: Through the data and the reporting we have, we will see what the take-up is. We will be tracking complaints. We will be tracking how many firms are authorised to provide this. We will be watching all of that closely.
Q229 Chair: Thank you very much. I just want to move on to insurance. We have looked at this a bit on the Committee, and in previous Committees as well, and we have been concerned about the extra premium for paying monthly. You have said that the cost of paying monthly has fallen because of the consumer duty. Do you think that problem is now solved?
Sarah Pritchard: As you know, we have taken a really in-depth look at consumers who are paying monthly and whether what we call the premium finance market is working well. We carried out a market study that reported last year, through in-depth supervision under the fair value aspect of the consumer duty. As a result of that work, we saw APRs reduce by an average of 4 percentage points, but among firms where we have specifically engaged, there was a much greater reduction of 7 percentage points. We estimate that saved consumers £157 million a year.
I would like to make it really clear that that is not a report that is just once and done. We continue to monitor premium finance and to monitor the market. We are continuing to follow up with firms on how they are taking the learnings and the findings of our market study into account. We believe that we can continue to drive any changes that are needed through our consumer duty, the supervision, and looking closely at the savings that have already been delivered for consumers in this area.
Q230 Chair: Consumer duty has taken us so far, but there is still an extra cost. The firms tell us why they think that needs to be the case. Do you think it is unavoidable or do you think that, if you had stronger regulation, you could drive out that extra cost for borrowing monthly? Is that something you would want to consider?
Sarah Pritchard: We looked really closely at the market. We considered whether we should mandate a 0% APR. We looked at caps. Whenever we consider that range of tools, it is important that we look at it in the round and also consider what the risks of exclusion might be, as well as inclusion.
I go back to the earlier point about how it remains a commercial decision for firms whether to provide products and whether to lend. In the round, we considered that the best way to approach this is through the consumer duty. As I said, it is delivering £157 million in savings. We think that is the right approach to have taken here.
Q231 John Glen: Some people would say that the greater sophistication that insurance firms have now and the tools that they have to measure risk mean that they can identify people to exclude, and they can do that on a quite sophisticated basis, falling behind some of these general principles that they go to market and they are there to make money. The generic, unspecific nature of the safeguards that are in place mean that they can get away with progressively excluding more and more people who appear to have a higher risk to them. How would you respond to that concern?
Sarah Pritchard: I would say two things. First, there is a real benefit that technology can provide in terms of inclusion, such as quicker personalised recommendations and products, but of course those benefits also come with risks of exclusion and explainability, which are particularly accelerated in a world of AI.
That is exactly why we have asked one of our exec directors, Sheldon Mills, to have a look at the impact of AI on consumers in retail financial services. He will be reporting in the summer. We await that report to consider what the risks and issues might be and whether that requires any form of different attention.
Q232 John Glen: Is that by sector? Is he specifically looking at insurance? What are the parameters of his examination? It is welcome news, but I just wondered if you could tell us any more about what we could expect from that work?
Sarah Pritchard: Sheldon has been looking at retail financial services in the round. Insurance is clearly very important in terms of consumer resilience and helping them in the event of dealing with unexpected events. That is why you see insurance so front and centre in the financial inclusion strategy.
I would say that there are real benefits to technology. There are also real risks. There are real benefits in getting quicker credit decisions to consumers, alternative offerings and reducing the cost to serve, but it is important that we also look at what the risks might be.
Q233 Chair: Affordability is the biggest issue. There was a tragic fire in my constituency, and most of the tenants in that block did not have insurance because they had said, “We cut it when our cost of living rose”. It is happily a rare occurrence that people have a fire and everything is destroyed, but affordability really hit hard in that moment. Is there anything that you think you should be doing or could have powers to encourage lower-cost insurance products?
Sarah Pritchard: Again, within the last year, we have really focused on costs in motor markets and in home and travel markets. We are also looking at home and travel through the data returns that we obtain regularly, showing that successful claims rates were lower than elsewhere. We have begun to see costs come down, particularly in motor markets. We have been working jointly with the Government on the motor insurance taskforce.
On home insurance in particular, we are working with industry bodies to look at overall costs, claims management practices and third-party services that are involved that we think may be creating some higher costs there.
One of the specific things in the financial inclusion strategy is around how to increase access to contents insurance for social renters. That work is being led by others, and we are really involved in that to see if we can increase the uptake.
Q234 Chair: One of the ways to increase uptake is to have it included, for example, in the rent, which is a penalty but also a protection. Do you have any views on that?
Sarah Pritchard: That is absolutely the thing that is under consideration and being piloted.
Q235 Chair: Would you then regulate, if it was a housing association or a council? Where does the FCA fit into that?
Sarah Pritchard: Depending on how that is constructed, it is possible that it may need some regulatory change around bundling within our rules. That is something we would be open to exploring.
Q236 John Glen: Is that not the point? The housing associations are reticent to do that because they are anxious about being caught and penalised for doing it. This cat-and-mouse game has been going on for several years. Do you think you are any nearer resolving it so that you can give housing associations assurance that they can get those products available and not be at risk of being done for mis-selling or whatever?
Sarah Pritchard: That is exactly why the approach here of pilot, test and then scale is the right one. We will be around the table as those discussions are happening. If there are regulatory barriers, perceived regulatory barriers or changes that need to take place, we will consider that. We are around the table so that there can be piloting, testing and then scaling.
Q237 Chair: Another area of home insurance, of course, is for leaseholders who struggle because insurance has gone up massively, particularly as a result of Grenfell but probably not just that. We have been challenging the insurance industry to a degree on some of that. Do you think there is any role for you there?
For instance, in my constituency, there was a block that one insurance company said it might be willing to do. The excess was £20,000 if there was a claim. They managed to reduce the excess but could only get insurance for one year. There are some blocks that are really struggling to get insurance. That seems to suggest to me a bit of a market failure. Is that something you are considering?
Sarah Pritchard: We have done some work on this issue. We have limited levers at play here. I can follow up in writing with more detail on what we have been doing in that context, if that would be helpful.
Q238 Chair: I should have declared that I am a leaseholder, although I am not talking about my own situation. There are many leaseholders, particularly shared-ownership leaseholders, who are paying rent and mortgage. Mortgages have gone up, rents will have increased in many cases, and they have no control over their insurance costs. There is a risk of an exclusion issue for people. They have no choice but to pay, but it is causing great stress to their household budgets. Is it something that is on your radar?
Sarah Pritchard: It is something that has been on our radar. As I said, we have done prior work on this. There are limited levers that we have. If it would be helpful, I am more than happy to follow up in writing with a summary of what we have done.
Chair: That would be really helpful. Thank you very much indeed.
Q239 Dame Harriett Baldwin: If I think about my own constituency, the issue really is that it is a banking desert now. I have a lot of older constituents who probably do not have a smartphone and do not know what an app is. It is really hard for them to get face-to-face contact with the banking system. The post office network is increasingly important. If you are lucky, you might get a banking hub. It feels like that is the biggest area of financial exclusion in my area. What do you think needs to change on that front?
Sarah Pritchard: First, as you know, we have a specific remit around access to cash; it is not as broad as access to banking services. We are pleased to see the Government review being carried out by Richard Lloyd on that broader issue of access to banking services; we will engage with him and the Government on that. I believe the call for evidence on that launched just yesterday.
In relation to our remit, we know that our Financial Lives data tells us that, in 2024, 2.6 million people were heavy users of cash, so we know that it is important for local communities and a number of consumers, particularly vulnerable groups. We know that access to cash is important.
We think that our rules that require firms to assess access to cash before making any decisions around closures are working, but we are carrying out an in-depth review at the end of this year on how those rules are working in practice; we are very happy to engage with the Committee on that. We have 236 banking hubs now open.
Q240 Dame Harriett Baldwin: It is not just cash though, is it? Lloyds has stopped taking cheques, for example. You cannot deposit a cheque at Lloyds at a banking hub anymore. There is a whole cadre of older constituents who are not digital natives, who find themselves finding it increasingly hard to deal with the financial services sector. I did not hear anything in your answer that suggested you are trying to make any big changes in that area.
Sarah Pritchard: As you know, through the Financial Services and Markets Act, the remit that the FCA should have in this area was hotly debated. Parliament decided that our remit should be specifically around access to cash; it does not go as far as what you have been raising there in terms of broader access to banking services, which is why we are supportive of the Government-led review taking an evidence-led approach to the broader needs for communities. That is something we will engage on.
Our remit is limited to access to cash. That said, we see some really good examples of partnership within banking hubs, and between banking hubs and community advice-type provision. Those are the sorts of things that are being seen in practice. We encourage that, but we await the findings of Richard Lloyd’s review.
Q241 Chair: I think it is due to go to Ministers in October. It is around that timeframe, isn’t it?
Sarah Pritchard: It is later this year, yes.
Q242 Chair: Just briefly, open banking is another innovation that is coming forward. We have heard different evidence about how that can help people because there is a greater transparency about transactions. Are you on the positive side, or do you have any caveats about how open banking and innovation can increase financial inclusion for the digital natives? I suppose it is the opposite end of the scale from what Dame Harriett was discussing just now.
Sarah Pritchard: There is real potential with open finance and open banking. Just last week, commercial variable recurring payments, which is a bit of a mouthful to say, went live. Really, this is about enabling consumers who have variable incomes—of course, there are many people who have variable incomes—to pay for utilities and Government services in a different way, putting the consumer in more control in a less rigid way than direct debits. That has the potential to be quite significantly game-changing for consumers.
Technology and some of the open finance we have been talking around, around personalised recommendations around credit, can really help to benefit consumers. There is real potential here, and that is why we are looking at open finance and how individual data can be shared across firms to deliver better for consumers. I was really pleased to see the launch of commercial variable recurring payments last week.
Q243 Chair: There is some good stuff, but there are also a lot of models behind these systems that not everyone has access to. Over the years, there has been discussion about algorithms; now there is AI. There will be machines making decisions in the system. Do you think you have enough access to what is going on in the depths of firms when they are making decisions about who to lend to and how they support people, particularly the financially excluded?
Sarah Pritchard: On the broader question of AI, we have been very clear that we are not going to develop specific regulation for AI. We just do not think that is the right thing to do. We think we have sufficient regulatory hooks through the consumer duty, and particularly through the senior managers regime, to make sure that firms are delivering good outcomes for consumers.
Clearly, it is important that firms focus on explainability and look also at risks of bias. The review that Sheldon is carrying out is into how AI will be used in 2030, which is not so far away, but at the pace of change that AI is driving in markets at the moment, there could be significant change. That review will be quite important for us in looking at what the impact might be for consumers.
Q244 Chair: Do you see some risks here? Consumers may not know where decisions are being made. You might not have full sight of that. If something goes wrong, how will you know and how will you do something about it? The senior managers regime and all of that is supposed to kick in, but there are a lot of known unknowns coming, are there not?
Sarah Pritchard: There are. Front and centre of our approach is that we want consumers to be able to make informed decisions. We want firms to deliver well, but we also want firms to be confident to experiment and deploy AI models, which is why we have really scaled our innovation and sandbox offerings so that we are alongside firms as they scale.
We do not want to create a risk-averse culture where firms are too scared to innovate, because, ultimately, consumers will lose the benefit of some of the real positives that can be seen. Equally, we want firms to be alert to the outcomes that they are driving for consumers and to act quickly if results are being seen that are unexpected.
That is why that partnership and testing in the sandbox is so important. Alongside the testing that we are doing, we are also thinking about how we can more broadly and publicly share the findings of the number of sandbox offerings that we have, particularly on AI at the moment.
Q245 Chair: In the situations that Dame Harriett was describing where people can talk to people and have things explained, if someone was refused a product they would have somebody to talk to about it, but now, if you are a digital native or you are using the digital options, you do something in the app and it spits it out. Are you confident and how are you watching to see that there is enough of an explanation when someone is refused a product, so that the customer understands what is going on?
Sarah Pritchard: Front and centre of our consumer duty is that it is important that there are well-designed products and services, and that there is good consumer understanding. We will be looking at whether the firms are implementing the consumer duty, whether there is good explainability to consumers, and that consumers are able to speak to the firm and ask questions if they are not getting the outcomes they seek.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed. I thank you for your time, Sarah Pritchard, deputy chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority. The uncorrected transcript of this session will be available on the website in the next couple of days, and we will be producing our report on financial inclusion once we have heard from the Minister and her team, so in the next few weeks. Thank you very much indeed for your time.
Examination of witnesses
Witnesses: Rachel Blake, Dan Rusbridge and Alanna Barber.
Q246 Chair: Welcome back to the Treasury Committee on Tuesday 9 June 2026. We are continuing our discussion on the Government’s financial inclusion strategy. Our second panel has the Minister, Rachel Blake, who is the relatively recently appointed Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Congratulations, Minister, on your appointment from the Treasury Committee to Economic Secretary. You are in good company in this room. There are quite a lot of former Economic Secretaries around the table. Welcome.
Welcome also to Alanna Barber, who is the deputy director for the banking and credit team at His Majesty’s Treasury. Dan Rusbridge is the deputy director for the personal finances and funds team at His Majesty’s Treasury.
Before we go into the financial inclusion strategy, we just wanted to talk to you a bit about the motor finance situation. You were in the room when we were discussing this with Sarah Pritchard. The FCA very helpfully sent us a detailed 17-page letter about the latest situation with the motor finance compensation scheme. As the Minister overseeing all of this, are you happy that it is taking so long to deliver this compensation scheme?
Rachel Blake: Can I just make some declarations of interest before we start? It is a matter of public record that I am the Member of Parliament for Cities of London and Westminster, which obviously includes the City of London. I am a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament, which is relevant for the financial inclusion bit.
To specifically answer your question, I do not think anybody can be happy with the amount of delay to securing a scheme. Obviously, we have to recognise that a legal challenge has been made at this point, and that is within a legitimate framework, but there are consumers out there who have experienced this situation. I do not think any of us would be happy with a delay.
Q247 Chair: You were in the room when Sarah Pritchard was talking about the importance of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is currently in the House of Lords. That could help to speed this up in future. Indeed, if there were amendments to that Bill, it could deal with some of the delays, perhaps giving the FCA more powers. Is this something that is on your radar? We appreciate that you have been in the job for only a matter of weeks, but maybe your officials can help.
Rachel Blake: The Bill is very much on my radar. I was listening. I did not hear specifically what amendments the FCA would suggest to address this. I do not know whether you want to add anything specifically about FOS reform and the relationship between the FOS and the FCA.
Q248 Chair: If this goes badly, the FOS will be overwhelmed with cases. The FCA is very clear in its position: a redress scheme is quicker and simpler. Legal challenges, much as they are legitimate, can take a long time and, as Ms Pritchard said, would mean that consumers take a long while to get their money. Mr Rusbridge, is there any prospect of any amendments to that Bill that would enable the FCA to do what it wants to do?
Dan Rusbridge: Just taking a brief step back, the ability for the FCA to create these schemes is really important. They have done it successfully at least twice before, once, for example, for the British Steel pension scheme members.
Via the Bill, we are changing the way that these mass redress events work. There are two key changes. One is changing the legislative threshold for the FCA so that it can step in and make these types of schemes. The idea is to be able to give people their compensation more quickly.
The other thing they are trying to do is to address the second part of your question, which is about the burden on the Financial Ombudsman Service. At the moment, the FOS has a lot of complaints on its book. Regardless of what happens with the scheme, the Financial Ombudsman Service will have to deal with those itself.
One of the changes that we are making in the Bill is that, once a scheme has been set up and established, the Financial Ombudsman Service, rather than dealing with those complaints itself, will be able to push those complaints back to the scheme. That will be able to get people their compensation much more quickly, and to deliver on the purpose of those schemes, which is about making sure that the financial services firms—banks in this case—are able to deal with those in an efficient way to get people’s compensation out the door as quickly as possible.
Q249 Chair: There is another thing that we have picked up in this, Minister. I do not know if you have had a chance to look at the letter. It was published at 7 o’clock this morning, so I appreciate that you may not have it committed fully to memory at this point. The FCA highlights some of the challenges around claims management companies. This Committee has heard evidence, or certainly we are aware of evidence, about venture capitalists who are paying for adverts on Instagram and social media to hook people in. They get their payback when they take a cut of the compensation. They are putting money speculatively to be paid off the back of the compensation to consumers. This seems a very bizarre model to us.
I am not expecting that you will have an answer about how the Treasury might deal with this, but is His Majesty’s Treasury at all concerned about this? Are there any thoughts about what you might be able to do to resolve that situation?
Rachel Blake: Yes, I am concerned. I even starred that particular bit in the letter. The unwanted texts and emails are a huge and growing problem. I recognise what is happening with the business model. The way in which consumers might be receiving those texts and emails, and also potentially other ways of getting to those consumers, such as through other forms of advertising, is something that has been raised with me and is on my radar.
Q250 Chair: Okay, so we can talk to you about it when you come in front of us next.
Rachel Blake: Yes, when I have more ideas and reflections on what we could do about it.
Chair: We recognise that it is a big challenge, but it is very concerning that quite vulnerable people can click on something and suddenly find that they are effectively funding a speculative capitalist.
Q251 John Glen: Could I just follow up with Mr Rusbridge on the issue of the FOS and FCA? For industry, it is presented as a clarification of a risk that the FOS makes individual decisions that are then deemed to have a wider pattern of behaviour behind them. On the other side, consumer organisations will say that the consumer is at risk of not getting their case looked at individually. Could you describe for the Committee what you think the outcome should be of the change that would reassure both parties in what I have just said? The Minister is welcome to comment, too.
Dan Rusbridge: There are two different components to the FOS reform. The bit that I was talking about a moment ago was about how we deal with mass redress. In that scenario, the FCA is responding where there has been a widespread problem, and ideally one where there is a fairly standardised way of dealing with it. Motor finance is a good example of that. It is a way of reuniting people with the compensation they are owed. There is not so much of a problem from a consumer perspective on that side.
The other side of it is about the predictability of decisions. The Financial Ombudsman Service was set up as a way to deal with complaints in a simple and straightforward way. As time has gone on—
Q252 John Glen: That is not how it has worked out. I will say that.
Dan Rusbridge: Yes, in your words. The criticism is that the outcomes and decisions have not been predictable. For individual consumers, of course they will still have their complaint considered by the ombudsman on an individual basis, but there is now going to be a system built in, so where there is some ambiguity about the rules, the financial ombudsman can go back to the regulator and ask about what it originally intended with the framework that it set up.
Q253 John Glen: You will remove dissonance between the FOS and the FCA, which has been the principal anxiety of industry.
Dan Rusbridge: Yes, exactly.
Q254 John Glen: Do you think that will go when this reform is taken through?
Dan Rusbridge: That is the aim.
Rachel Blake: That is the intention of the reform.
Q255 Chair: Are you confident, Minister, that consumers will not lose out?
Rachel Blake: Yes, I am. Making a really effective FOS is in the interests of consumers. Having that clarity of relationship between the FOS and the FCA is in the interests of the consumer.
Q256 John Grady: Just stepping back on the motor finance saga, we have already had extensive litigation, including on various common law principles. We now have a judicial review, which could, of course, go to the Court of Appeal or even the Supreme Court on a point of law. This is taking a long time. Consumers are not getting money to which they are entitled at a time when consumers are really struggling. Is the Treasury looking at this in the round with a view to reviewing it to see what we can do on a more radical basis to speed this up? What is happening is that we are spending all our time in the courts, and consumers are struggling to get their hands on money to which they are entitled.
Rachel Blake: Do you mean in terms of the system?
John Grady: I mean the overall system and whether we can deal with these things more expeditiously in the courts.
Rachel Blake: I need to reflect more on the courts question.
Q257 John Grady: Is the Treasury going to step back at some point and look at how the system has worked to delay it so long?
Rachel Blake: The Treasury has done that, which is why the FOS and the FCA reforms are coming forward through the Bill, but we need to see what happens through the legal challenge because that will unearth more about the impact on these relationships and what the structure has delivered so far.
John Grady: I look forward to hearing about that, Dame Meg.
Q258 Chair: Just before we go on to financial inclusion, there is an important point about cash ISAs. Just to recap, it was announced at the Budget before last that, from April 2027, people will not be able to put all £20,000 of their annual ISA allowance into a cash ISA. Instead, they will be allowed to put up to £12,000 into a cash ISA and up to £8,000 into a stocks and shares ISA. There is now some serious confusion arising about what happens to the dividends from a stocks and shares ISA and, particularly, how you define the money held in cash-like investment ISAs. What is happening? It is very confusing. We are in June already and this is supposed to be coming in next April.
Rachel Blake: I recognise the problem. We will be coming to you soon with the next steps on this. I appreciate that is not what you want to hear and perhaps may not be sufficient.
Q259 Chair: Did the Government not see this coming before the change was introduced? It seems a bit odd that we are still scrabbling around now trying to find an answer.
Rachel Blake: I am sure that the Treasury did, but it is imminent.
Q260 Chair: For the record, Mr Rusbridge is nodding. Officials were giving advice to Ministers on this.
Rachel Blake: I will see whether Dan or Alanna want to say anything on this.
Dan Rusbridge: I can come in on this, if that is helpful. The first thing to say is that the objective behind the cash ISA reform is to address some of the structural challenges we have in the UK about very low levels of investment. We have the lowest in the G7. The Government want more people to benefit from the benefits that investing can provide. This is part of a package of measures. Dame Harriett, you were asking about targeted support in the previous session. We may come on to some of those later in this session, too, but it was part of a package to try to get more people investing. This is a nudge towards investment.
The last time we had a differential limit was in 2014. There were a set of rules in place at that stage where, basically, cash had a flat charge when it was in a stocks and shares ISA. What we have been doing is looking at whether that is the right set of rules or whether they need to be updated in the light of how market practice has evolved over the last 10 or 12 years.
In particular, there are questions about how we treat cash-like investments—things that are a bit like cash but are different, such as money market funds—to reflect that they are now an increasing part of people’s investment portfolios and are not cash or a direct competitor with it. Trying to square that circle has been a tricky policy challenge. We have been engaging in a very full way with the broadest range of stakeholders to try to find a way through that. We will be coming out with details on that very soon.
Q261 Chair: Does “very soon” mean before the summer or the autumn?
Dan Rusbridge: Yes, certainly before that. It will be very soon.
Q262 Chair: We know there is pressure from the building societies, which have been very worried about their access to funds to provide mortgage lending. Is there pressure coming from them about the cash-like side on the investment ISA? It is just a yes or no.
Rachel Blake: Not directly to me in the last three and a half weeks, no.
Q263 Chair: That is no doubt to come, Minister. I will park that. There is also talk of a 22% tax rate on any cash-like holdings in a stocks and shares ISA. That seems very confusing for the consumer. You could quite legitimately put money in, not quite realise what you are going into and find that what you think is tax-free has been suddenly slapped with a 22% tax. Minister, are the rumours that that could be happening right? It has been reported widely.
Rachel Blake: I think those are just rumours.
Q264 Chair: Are you saying categorically that the Government have no plans to tax interest or dividends?
Rachel Blake: That is the first time I have heard that rumour.
Dan Rusbridge: All I would add to what the Minister has said is that we have been looking at how the ISA framework should accommodate the increased use of cash-like investments and what flexibilities could be put in place for that. The Government will be coming forward with precise details to clarify exactly this very soon, because it is a really important question.
Q265 Chair: I do not expect you to give me the full details of the very-soon-to-be-made announcement, but we have been picking up—there is certainly no clarity on this—that in a cash-like investment ISA you get a dividend or an interest payment, but you cannot put that into a neighbouring cash ISA, if you already own one, or you cannot move it within the ISA wrapper into a cash ISA. That is one of the particularly difficult points. Is that in the remit of what you are talking about in terms of the new coming announcements?
Dan Rusbridge: Certainly, the coming announcement will describe in full detail exactly all the rules around anti-circumvention or however you want to describe it, so that ISA managers have all the detail they need to make sure they can be ready for when these changes come online in April next year.
Q266 Chair: Ultimately, the Treasury is trying to get consumers to invest. Can I just be clear? Will it be an announcement of the changes or are you consulting on these proposals?
Dan Rusbridge: There will be an announcement on the changes, but then there will be a technical consultation on the detail of the rules.
Q267 Chair: What is the time period for that?
Dan Rusbridge: I am not sure.
Q268 Chair: Is it weeks? I cannot remember. It can be 12 weeks or six weeks. You can have short consultations.
Dan Rusbridge: I expect it will be on the shorter side, just because we are slightly running low on time.
Q269 Chair: From speaking to the industry, are you confident that it will be able to implement the changes in the timeframe?
Dan Rusbridge: That has been a core question that we have been engaging on as part of our engagement. The answer that we have been getting back is that this is deliverable in time for April next year.
Q270 Chair: If it is not deliverable in that timeframe, would you delay it to make sure it is deliverable and clear to consumers and fund managers?
Rachel Blake: I would not want to do that. I want to make sure that we have a system in place ready for the deadline.
Q271 Chair: That is fine. Can you just narrow down for me when the consultation will come out? You have said “very soon”. Minister, is your ambition to have it before the summer recess?
Rachel Blake: Yes.
Chair: Thank you. It is amazing for a Minister to commit to a date.
Rachel Blake: I am sure I will not be doing it for long.
Q272 Chair: Yes, before your officials stop you. I am sorry; I jest.
We need to move on to the very important issue of the financial inclusion strategy. We have had witnesses on this particularly from the consumer side. Everyone acknowledges that this document is a useful thing to have—it is important that we look at financial inclusion—but there was some suggestion that it lacks ambition. Minister, you were not involved when it was first mooted. Are you the third or fourth Minister dealing with this?
Rachel Blake: I am the fourth.
Chair: We see a rather high turnover of Ministers in your position. You can say what you think because you were not there at the beginning. Do you think it lacks ambition?
Rachel Blake: No. It is ambitious. It does address some of the structural barriers. I know the structural barriers have been discussed in previous hearings, which I have watched. Particularly in the financial education and capability sections, we are taking the necessary action to overcome some of those structural barriers.
I am sure we will get on to the themes and the pillars. Taking that approach means there are the necessary interventions to tackle the scale of financial exclusion at the moment. That means we can get to the objective of everyone having access to the products they need when they want them, so that they can take part fully in the economy.
I do not for a second underestimate the impact of financial exclusion on individuals. This strategy is in the great tradition of Labour Governments taking necessary action, if you think back to the introduction of basic bank accounts.
Q273 Chair: Do you see this as one and done, or is it a first step towards tackling financial exclusion?
Rachel Blake: It is not one and done. We have the two-year review that you have already heard a bit about. I see that as a critical moment to review progress, particularly on the pilots and the test-and-learn interventions, and to go back and look again at the metrics in terms of progress on individual outputs and changes to particular elements.
Q274 Chair: You have come into this as Minister No. 4.
Rachel Blake: You can just call me Minister No. 4 from now on, Dame Meg.
Chair: It is like Thing One and Thing Two from Dr Seuss. You will get your babygrow. I am sorry—people who do not know Dr Seuss should go and look at the reference. I was not being rude about the Minister in any way. It was not meant that way.
You now have the financial inclusion strategy. I know you have test and learn, but are there any areas that you personally would like to go further on in future iterations?
Rachel Blake: I am particularly interested in how we understand the relationship between the interventions and the outcomes. Financial education and capability is a really powerful part of the strategy. A couple of weeks ago, I went to see a primary school where there are early years children undertaking financial education by playing shop in nursery, right up to year 6 lessons learning far more about debit and credit cards than I certainly did when I was in year 6. It was really quite sophisticated. That is an exemplar description of financial education, but that is a really powerful part of the strategy.
The other part that I would like to see go further and I am really keen to hear about is the insurance pilot for social tenants that you were talking about in the earlier session. It is a really damaging experience to be uninsured in that setting. The numbers are stark. It is two thirds, I believe, based on survey evidence. I am really keen to see what the right interventions are.
Q275 Chair: You might need to legislate for that because of the regulation of financial products. As Mr Glen was saying, there is a challenge for a lot of landlords.
Rachel Blake: That is what we need to understand in terms of bundling. I have met Fair4All Finance. It is making good progress on the pilot. I am interested in the affordability element that you have alluded to. I understand there are products that you can claim for £1 a week. I do not have the name of them here. The point about tenancies and bundling is really interesting. Clearly, we will need to have conversations with landlords, both councils and—
Q276 Chair: I am not expecting you to have answers on this right now, but are these your further ambitions?
Rachel Blake: These are the things that could really turn the dial.
Q277 Chair: What about leaseholders? I know that in your constituency, like in mine—I declare again that I am a leaseholder—there are challenges with leasehold insurance. Is that something that is on your radar?
Rachel Blake: Just so the officials can breathe a bit, this is not something I have been particularly briefed on or particularly looked at in the Treasury. As you know, as a constituency Member of Parliament prior to being a Minister, I spoke out about how that insurance is brokered. I know there are interesting models for brokering that type of insurance. It is worth thinking about the consumer relationship between leaseholders, managing agents and brokers. I do not think I have said anything that is not factually describing the system, but I agree with you. It is a part of the market to note.
I have known the officials for only about three and a half weeks, so I do not want to upset them.
Chair: You get a gold star, as they have not fainted in your presence.
Rachel Blake: They are still here.
Q278 Chair: They have not fled the room. Finally, you mentioned in your declarations at the top that you are a Labour and Co-op MP. I should declare that I am, as are other members of this Committee. There is a role for mutuals and credit unions in financial inclusion. Is that an area you would like to push further?
Rachel Blake: Yes. We have the £13 million transformation fund that is being distributed by Fair4All Finance. It is looking at a number of different things that credit unions might need in order to reach further into the market and provide more affordable credit. That is a really important part of the interventions.
Q279 John Grady: That is a very timely question about credit unions. The Select Committee visited Glasgow last year, where we met representatives of the BCD Credit Union in Bridgeton, which is one of the excellent community credit unions. The concern of the Committee in visiting Glasgow was to make sure that some of the poorest consumers got a seat at the table and a voice and were heard by us because this industry is dominated by big businesses.
On the financial inclusion strategy, there has been a wide range of criticism given to this Committee that insufficient weight was given to consumer voices. For instance, Helen Undy said just that. Do you agree with those criticisms?
Rachel Blake: I do not. A range of partners have been involved in the preparation of the strategy. The Financial Inclusion Committee, which next meets on 23 June, has consumer representatives on it. As I said, as Minister, I have been meeting with education partners and other partners involved on the consumer side for delivery.
Q280 John Grady: One of the criticisms that has been made is that there was no general call for evidence. This Select Committee has had a very successful call for evidence in the context of student loans. If we could go back in time, would a call for evidence have been a good idea to get a wider set of consumer voices?
Rachel Blake: In fairness, I do not know the circumstances under which that decision was made. I personally like calls for evidence, but this is not the end in terms of engagement. As Minister, I am certainly looking forward to the next meeting of the Financial Inclusion Committee and hearing directly from them. I hope to have full and frank conversations with them.
Q281 John Grady: Minister, this is not the end, which is good news. I am delighted to hear that. Would you be able to write to the Committee, reflecting on the sorts of things you might explore to ensure that HMT is properly informed about consumer voices in the future, such as through calls for evidence and so on, as you develop this strategy and review it over the next year or so?
Rachel Blake: Yes, absolutely.
Q282 John Glen: Can I just pick up on something that you were talking about in terms of financial education? The Government have given £15 million to Fair4All Finance to look at supporting 16 to 24-year-olds, and there is a curriculum review under way. What would success look like next spring when that curriculum review is completed? I co-chair an APPG on post-16 education, and we have a session this afternoon. There is anxiety about this being handed over to the curriculum review. What input are you and the Treasury having to make sure this is delivering something significant in terms of provision in the curriculum? For 16 to 18-year-olds, lots of different types of education go on. Are you and your officials inputting into that process? How do we know what success would look like?
Rachel Blake: I have not yet had any input, but I would very much like to. I will go to officials to see how they are working directly with Department for Education colleagues on this topic. I watched the hearing about this just last night so it is very much in my mind what the Money Charity was saying. I am particularly conscious about the risk of there being quite a fragmented set-up in terms of provision around 16 to 18. I heard but disagreed a bit with the criticism about funding. The funding for the interventions would be an interesting area to discuss.
In terms of what good would look like, there needs to be that collaboration with, certainly, the education sector around what they are able and prepared to do. We also need to hear directly from consumer groups so that we have an evidence base about the impact and particular experiences for 16 to 18-year-olds.
I talked earlier about best practice in some third-sector organisations and the exemplar projects that they are doing, which demonstrate really clearly what a meaningful impact you can have from three-year-olds going up to 11-year-olds. In terms of what good looks like, that foundational change is what good would look like combined with a partnership approach across different sectors.
Dan Rusbridge: I can add briefly on the engagement we are doing. It is important to say that the DFE ran its curriculum review and took lots of evidence from experts to come up with the conclusion that financial education should be a compulsory part of the school curriculum. It is now in the process of designing what that looks like. Treasury officials are working with officials in DFE. There will be a wide consultation and an opportunity for lots of experts to feed into all of that, so that the curriculum can come online and be taught for the first time from 2028.
Q283 John Glen: Minister, you are the fourth Economic Secretary in 23 months. That certainly is not your fault. I am sure you want to make a pledge that you will stay there till the end of this Parliament.
Rachel Blake: You said to City AM that you hoped I would as well.
John Glen: Yes, that is right. It is good for the role. When we seriously look at the financial inclusion strategy, stakeholders looking in will say, “How can you possibly have a situation where you have a fourth Minister in less than two years?” What can you say about the delivery and institutional anchors within the Treasury in terms of accountability of outcomes through the pillars and what you have set out that you want to achieve? How can you reassure us? Hopefully, you will make a pledge today that you want to stay there forever.
Rachel Blake: Do I have to stay forever or just until retirement?
John Glen: Until there is a change of Government at the next election, obviously. That reassurance is important. What can you say to reassure us?
Rachel Blake: It is important. I agree with you. I heard the description from the third-sector organisations of how they met one and then met another, and they did not get a chance to feed into the Committee. No serious person would say that is an ideal situation. I agree with you. I am grateful that you recognise it is not my personal fault. It is not the Treasury as an institution’s fault either.
You are absolutely right to go to the institutional set-up. There is the Financial Inclusion Committee, which talked about the membership being seven and seven, but it is now eight and five in terms of the different consumer representatives on there. I will write to you in detail about the structure. That committee continues to meet.
At official level, the director meets quarterly with a working group focusing on the delivery of the objectives. In addition, there are roundtables ongoing, which I am personally really committed to. Last week or the week before, we met the economic abuse roundtable, which had credit reference agencies there to talk about that and other interventions that need to be made to address the impact of economic abuse on financial inclusion.
Those should carry on. For future ESTs listening in, my advice would be to carry on with the roundtables, but the formal infrastructure is through that Financial Inclusion Committee and the quarterly working groups.
I should also add that, in terms of delivery, key partners are the Money and Pensions Service on debt advice and Fair4All Finance on some of the pilots. Of course, they have their own governance and structures around delivery. I have met both of them for a one-to-one. They will have their own reporting mechanisms. There are institutional structures in place.
Q284 John Glen: It was my experience that there were frequent conversations, but there is a challenge in terms of accountability and the specificity of accountability. How do you plan to ensure that those partners are held to account for delivering actual outcomes?
Rachel Blake: On the technical side, some of them are contracted. There are agreements in place on some of the projects. They should be held to account for delivery on the project planning side. Holding industry or the delivery partners to account is done through the Financial Inclusion Committee. I expect the Treasury Committee will be holding myself and future ESTs—should there ever be any again, which I hope there never are—to account. TC has a clear role in that as well.
Q285 John Glen: You will have heard that in the previous session we raised the concerns in specific areas. Sarah Pritchard, the deputy chief executive of the FCA, set out the advantages and risks of AI and new technology. Do you harbour any concerns in that regard? Do you want to challenge stakeholders on things that are not being addressed? Are there any new insights that you could bring as a new Minister?
Rachel Blake: Do you mean specifically on AI?
Q286 John Glen: Yes, in its application to the financially excluded.
Rachel Blake: Operationally, there is real potential with AI in terms of providing debt advice. That is one of the areas that the Money and Pensions Service is exploring, supporting advisers with the initial step of providing debt advice. There is a really important role for AI in that space.
I recognise the role it could start playing on advice in terms of throwing some prompts into AI and what that could start doing in the market. I have started to think about that. I do not bring you a ready-made position on it, but I am quite live to it as a factor.
Q287 Jim Dickson: It is very good to hear that you are already taking a hands-on approach to some of the aspects of delivering the strategy, having one-to-one meetings with some of the key players. I am very interested in the pilots that Fair4All Finance is taking forward, among others the small sum lending pilot and the no interest loan scheme.
What is your role in terms of looking at the metrics from those and whether they have been successful in trying to make sure they do scale up, if the numbers are there to support them, and are available as mainstream products?
Rachel Blake: These are important pilots. I really support the test-and-learn approach. I understand that the small sum lending pilot is on track. I expect to hear relatively regularly from Fair4All Finance on how it is going. The key role for the Minister is to make sure that the two-year review thoroughly considers the outcomes of those pilots and is able to consider, depending on their outcome, how they could be scaled and rolled out.
Some of the really interesting evidence you have heard so far is about co-location and advice in different spaces. There is clearly a cross-Government role there in terms of how different parts of public services are providing that particular advice.
Q288 Jim Dickson: If there is a marginal case and there is consideration as to whether something has met the criteria and whether it can be scaled up, do you see your role as being to get involved in that argument and press for an outcome, or is it a case of just making sure it is all being done properly?
Rachel Blake: No, it is more than making sure it is being done properly. It is certainly applying analysis to the outcome of the pilot. I do not know what kind of evidence is going to come forward so I cannot really say whether I would push at the margins, but it is certainly providing that analysis, that cross-Government approach and that recognition of the broader role of a number of social policy interventions to make a difference.
If you consider the example in some of the evidence about the interaction with mental health and other public services, that is where Ministers have a really important role in making sure that financial education and financial inclusion have cross-Government support.
Q289 Chair: Picking up on what Mr Glen was asking, we often get strategies coming out of Government, and it is really helpful to know who is actually going to be in charge. How are you going to make sure that you are co-ordinating all these things that you have talked about? Are you going to set out a plan about who owns each commitment? You do as Minister, but, as you say, you are Minister No. 4.
Rachel Blake: There is a plan for who owns each commitment. I can write to you on that.
Q290 Chair: Can you please write to us? We want to be able to hold those people to account. Will that be a senior responsible owner at official level?
Rachel Blake: Yes, and then there are the partners that deliver.
Q291 Chair: It is great to have the Committee involved, but we do not have our hands on the levers of what is going on in the Treasury, whereas Mr Rusbridge and Ms Barber have the power to deliver things. It will be an official. What level will that person be? Will they be a deputy director or a director?
Rachel Blake: It is a director who meets with them quarterly.
Chair: Maybe you write to us about it. It is someone suitably senior to be able to get things moving in the Treasury.
Rachel Blake: I think it is suitably senior, but I am relatively new. I will let you know if I do not think it is.
Q292 Chair: We have the grinning optimism of a new Minister. Let us see if that lasts. Each pillar will have a responsible owner and the plan will be clear about the timetable.
Rachel Blake: Yes.
Q293 Chair: Will it be a public document?
Rachel Blake: I think the two-year review is a public document. If the Treasury writes to you to tell you who is in charge of which strand, I believe it would become a public document. I think that is all fine.
Chair: They are not fainting next to you. That is fine.
Rachel Blake: I just need to make sure they are alive after I have stopped talking.
Q294 Chair: You are the Minister. You are in charge. You can tell us that it is going to be public. A number of us have been on Committees for a while. Sometimes the Government talk about what they are going to produce. You talked a lot about outcomes—that is quite right—but we heard very clearly from our earlier witnesses that we should have a baseline from which we are measuring, milestones along the way and the pilots that Mr Dickson was talking about. Will you publish information on all that to Parliament? Would you want to co-produce what you publish to Parliament with this Committee?
Rachel Blake: Would that be a first?
Chair: That would not quite be a first. I have managed to secure that a few times before. Is that something you would be willing to do?
Rachel Blake: I would certainly be—
Chair: The point is that, with all the best will in the world—and no disrespect at all to your civil servants, who do an excellent job, I am sure—sometimes what Parliament wants to see and what officials think we want to see can be different things. We could talk to you about what information we want. We are responsible, not reckless, just to reassure Mr Rusbridge. He looks a bit nervous next to you.
Rachel Blake: The baseline is the Financial Lives survey from 2024, and there are some outcomes in the next steps in the back of the strategy. The Financial Lives survey for 2026 is taking place as we speak. That is really important. There is then the two-year review, which would be November 2027.
One area to raise with the Committee is the impact of other factors. The financial inclusion strategy is not the only thing that is going to address financial exclusion in this country. Affordability is clearly a factor. There is a child poverty strategy as well, which will be addressing some of the affordability challenges. There are other Government measures, which, of course, I support, around energy bills and other things to bring down the overall cost of living.
That is the basic structure of measuring the impact of the strategy, but it is important to say that there are both positive factors on the cost of living, which is connected to financial inclusion, and negative external factors that we have to be aware of.
Q295 Chair: Does the survey that you talk about give you a clear picture of who is excluded and where they live? As we heard today, there are some different geographical issues.
Rachel Blake: I have asked this question, but I do not know the answer about geography. I know the answer about equality.
Dan Rusbridge: The Financial Lives survey does not provide a geographic breakdown, but it does look at other demographic indicators, such as age, sex, ethnicity, employment status, housing tenure and income. All those types of parameters are included, as well as things such as vulnerability. As the Minister says, a lot of it is looking at things that will be affected by other macroeconomic conditions.
Picking up on the point about pilots, that is why it is really important to have a very granular assessment of the outcomes from an individual pilot. For instance, on the no interest loan scheme—I know, Mr Glen, this is something very important to you—we are looking at not just whether they pay back their loan, but what the outcomes are for the individuals. Have they then been able to go on and access mainstream financial services? We are really looking forward to seeing the results of that pilot and then helping Ministers make a decision about what to do next.
Q296 Chair: You have this survey. What other data are you using to assess these things? I am a bit nervous if you do not know who these people are and where they live.
Rachel Blake: That is a factor, and it is something that I will be pursuing because the Financial Lives survey is not analysable to that level.
Q297 Chair: Is there a prospect that you might give money to, for example, regional mayors or indeed our constituencies? They will have a better understanding of the demographics.
Rachel Blake: They might even have that already. I do not know. I would like to know more and then talk about it. They might even have that already.
There are other bits. In terms of survey data, there is the MaPS MoneyView, which covers a number of other topics, and the ONS family resources survey. Each of the pilots will be evaluated, and that will bring forward important evidence. The geography and the regional impact is something to dig into.
Q298 Chair: I appreciate that, at your level, Minister, you have to look at the national averages. You have to make big decisions in a macro way. From what you are saying and what Mr Rusbridge was saying, you are going to get the granular detail from those pilots, so you are trying to match the big-picture decision-making that you have to make with some real-life examples.
Rachel Blake: Yes, absolutely.
Q299 John Grady: The strategy relies heavily on voluntary commitments. I just want to explore that a bit, if I may. What some bankers have explained to me is that they accept that customers need help with their money, face-to-face banking, motor insurance and contents insurance. They accept that these are essential products.
The hard fact is that they cannot provide all these products to all customers in our family of nations because those customers do not have the money to pay for them. Those financial institutions that make an effort to serve those customers risk being put at a serious disadvantage compared with, for example, online-only operations or operations that focus on higher-value customers. Unless there is really strong Government intervention, customers will continue to be left without access to basic financial products, insurance, current accounts and face-to-face banking. Do you agree with that characterisation of the core problem, Minister?
Rachel Blake: I agree with what I think your characterisation is, which is that there are some people for whom products at the moment are not completely working.
Q300 John Grady: And without Government intervention, the market will not provide this because these customers are simply not sufficiently profitable to serve.
Rachel Blake: I would argue that there is a real government commitment here. I do not want to get into an argument with you about the definition of an intervention, but there are examples where the Government intervention of pursuing partnerships is having some success. The good example here is ID and the pilot working with Shelter to help people to get bank accounts if they do not have stable identification around a regular address. The progress made on that is an example of where the work of the strategy, convening industry, consumers and vulnerable groups, is making some progress.
To give you a pithier response, we are making good progress with a partnership approach. I would also add that a sector-by-sector and product-by-product analysis is helpful in this setting.
Q301 John Grady: That is very helpful, but I am genuinely trying to get to the heart of this issue. We had a very interesting discussion with Ms Pritchard from the FCA. What I took from her evidence is that no financial institution is under an obligation to serve customers if it is going to be loss-making. The FCA’s consumer duty cannot help there. That is a more fundamental point.
As we move forward and develop over the next few years—this is the beginning of the financial inclusion work, not the end—do we have to face into the fact that, unless there is strong intervention, the market will not provide people with insurance, savings and face-to-face banking, because it simply is not, on any basis, profitable for financial institutions to do that?
Rachel Blake: We are facing into it by convening the industry and the working groups that are taking place on inclusive design and the different issues with insurance, such as the travel insurance working group. There is a strong analysis taking place with industry and consumers to get to the bottom of it.
Q302 John Grady: Do the Government have an open mind on further intervention if a voluntary approach does not work?
Rachel Blake: We need to see where those working groups get to.
Alanna Barber: The Government have taken a power in the Bill to act on the provision of face-to-face services, should the evidence in the review that was discussed in the previous session suggest that is a good idea.
Chair: It is a latent power to enact.
John Grady: Ms Barber, that is a very good point. I am aware of that. The point might be that one might look at similar powers in future for what one considers to be essential products, such as contents insurance or something on those lines.
Q303 Chair: Would that power be able to apply to other things?
Alanna Barber: The power is about access to banking services. That power definitely could not be applied to other things.
I would also like to add one other point on basic bank accounts. The largest current account providers are under an obligation to provide those to customers. There are some limited reasons why they could decline, including where they have fraud concerns, for example. There is an obligation to provide those. Clearly, not everybody who wants an account has one yet.
Q304 John Grady: I fear you may be about to take a question out of Dame Meg’s hand, but could that power compel financial institutions to provide contents insurance to people?
Alanna Barber: The power as set out in the Bill at present could not, no, because it refers to access to face-to-face banking services.
Q305 Dame Harriett Baldwin: I have a question for Ms Barber. With respect to our new Economic Secretary, this preceded your appointment. On the decision to start an access to banking review, can you talk us through what prompted it? Do you recognise the picture I painted of banking deserts and a real lack of access to financial services in rural areas, particularly among older populations?
Alanna Barber: As Sarah Pritchard set out, the FCA’s remit covers cash. It does not cover access to banking services. That was a decision of Parliament in the previous Bill, but there is clearly a lot of concern about access to face-to-face banking services. We have seen that coming through in parliamentary questions and debates from parliamentarians and from the general public. Ministers felt it was important to understand better those concerns and the evidence base for them. That is why they made the decision to launch the review.
Q306 Dame Harriett Baldwin: Economic Secretary, you will have heard Sarah Pritchard’s recommendation earlier about the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the urgency with which it needs to be updated. Is that on this year’s legislative agenda for the Treasury?
Rachel Blake: Yes, the Consumer Credit Act is in the Bill.
Q307 Dame Harriett Baldwin: It will be part of what is in the Bill?
Rachel Blake: Yes.
Q308 Dame Harriett Baldwin: How will we, as a Committee, be able to measure success on all these initiatives that you have?
Chair: We could write a measurement strategy together.
Rachel Blake: We are going to co-produce a measurement strategy, by the sound of things. Clearly, the measures in the Bill are interconnected with the financial inclusion strategy. The Bill is not scheduled to come out of the Lords for a few more weeks and months. We will then need to come forward with how we will specifically measure that impact.
Q309 Chair: To finish, you have inherited this strategy. You sound very enthusiastic about it, I have to say, but what will be different, if this works, for those who are currently priced out of certain services? What is your vision for what this will achieve?
Rachel Blake: My overarching vision is that everyone who wants to is able to get access to products that mean they can engage in the economy meaningfully.
In terms of real difference, we have not talked much about debt advice. There has been quite a significant increase, up to £100 million, in funding for debt advice. There is also an investment in how that debt advice is delivered. Through the process of developing the strategy, there has been some quite meaningful partnership work and we have heard ideas from the Committee. When I see the Financial Inclusion Committee on 23 June, I expect to talk about working together in public services to get the advice to the right people. That is what will be tangibly different. I started off with the financial education bit. That is the real structural intervention.
Q310 Chair: That will be the structural thing that will change it for a generation. That is what you are saying. You are the City Minister, so you have a wide remit. Do you see this as primarily a consumer protection issue, a social policy issue or a contributor to the Government’s growth agenda?
Rachel Blake: You heard from Fair4All Finance about the impact that it could have on economic growth if everybody were able to participate effectively in the economy. We need to understand the role of social policy in terms of the partnership approach with different organisations, but clearly it is a cross-cutting issue, it is a cross-Government issue, and that is reflected in the governance and monitoring of the delivery of the strategy.
Q311 Chair: Perhaps you could flesh this out a little. For someone on a very low income, who may be getting their first free loan but is excluded from lots of services and struggling, with the cost of living, to put food on the table and so on, how is this strategy going to help them contribute to the growth of the British economy?
Rachel Blake: Their new employer might have access to a workplace savings system. If a credit union has received money from the credit union transformation fund, it might be in a more confident place to give them a loan, and therefore they might feel confident to take more action.
Chair: The proof will be in the metrics that you are going to talk to us about. Parliament as a whole and certainly this Committee will be scrutinising the delivery of this agenda. We rather hope that it will be the same Minister in front of us next time, because we feel like we keep starting again. You are very welcome, Minister. Again, congratulations on your appointment.
Thank you to: Rachel Blake, the Economic Secretary; and Alanna Barber and Dan Rusbridge from His Majesty’s Treasury. Thank you very much indeed. The uncorrected transcript will be available on the website in the next couple of days. We are seeking to produce our report—we do not even have a precise date for you—hopefully before the summer recess. Thank you very much indeed.