Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024
(3 days, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz.
The draft regulations will add four pieces of legislation to the list set out in section 17(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 so that legislation can be temporarily modified as part of financial market infrastructure sandboxes. The Treasury was granted the power to make provision for FMI sandboxes by section 13 of FSMA 2023, and the list of legislation that the Treasury can temporarily modify in an FMI sandbox is set out in section 17(3).
An FMI sandbox is designed to provide a controlled regulatory environment in which existing legislation and regulation is temporarily removed or modified. FMI sandbox participants can test new and developing technologies and practices that would otherwise be inhibited by existing legislation outside of the sandbox. If activity in an FMI sandbox is successful, and only after laying a report before Parliament, the Treasury can make permanent changes to legislation by introducing a further affirmative statutory instrument.
The testing of new technology and practices is inherently uncertain and will evolve over time, meaning that it is likely that the list of legislation in scope will need to be added to. For that reason, the Treasury has the power to add further legislation to the list in section 17(3) of FSMA 2023, as set out in section 17(6). Through the testing of new technologies and practices in an FMI sandbox, we are likely to identify additional legislative modifications, and the ability to add further legislation to the list is a way of ensuring that the FMI sandbox regime can be kept up to date.
The draft regulations exercise the power set out in section 17(6) of FSMA 2023, so that the four items of legislation can be added to support two FMI sandboxes, namely the existing digital securities sandbox, which I will refer to as DSS, and the future private intermittent securities and capital exchange system sandbox, also known as the PISCES sandbox—we love acronyms in the Treasury. The DSS will enable firms to test new and innovative technology across financial market infrastructure activities, and the PISCES sandbox will allow private companies to have their shares traded on an intermittent basis on a new type of stock market.
The draft regulations will bring the following legislation into scope of the power to make temporary modifications in FMI sandboxes: the Stock Transfer (Gilt-edged Securities) (CGO Service) Regulations 1985, which I will refer to as “STRs”; the Government Stock Regulations 2004, which I will refer to as “GSRs”; the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017, which I will refer to as “MLRs”; and regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council, also known as the prospectus regulation, which we inherited from the EU.
Temporarily modifying the STRs and GSRs will enable us to support the issuance of a digital gilt instrument through the DSS. I and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury set out further details of that pilot in written ministerial statements to both Houses on 18 November, which hon. Members may have seen. The MLRs will be modified to facilitate an exemption from the cryptoasset regime in the MLRs for DSS participants, on the basis that activity in the DSS will involve securities, such as bonds and equities, that are already regulated, so conventional anti-money laundering legislation will be applied in the normal way. The prospectus regulation will be modified as part of the PISCES sandbox so that prospectus requirements can be disapplied in favour of bespoke disclosure requirements in that sandbox.
I should note at this point that the draft regulations do not make any temporary changes to the four specific items of legislation. Under the procedure stipulated by FSMA 2023, that will be done as part of further negative SIs to be laid before Parliament, which will provide all the relevant explanatory information for the changes being made to each enactment. The Government published a draft of the instrument that will set up the PISCES sandbox in November for public comment ahead of its being laid before Parliament in May. The DSS was established by a statutory instrument laid last December, although changes to the MLRs will require a further statutory instrument, which is to be laid before Parliament in January.
I recognise that this is a very technical measure, but the draft regulations will make changes consistent with the powers established by FSMA 2023—the Conservative party led the introduction of that Act, and we supported it when we were in opposition—and support the continued development of the DSS and of future FMI sandboxes, such as the PISCES sandbox. The Government believe that this will help to support innovation through each of these FMI sandboxes. I hope that the Committee will feel able to support the draft regulations and their objectives, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I think this is the fourth or fifth time that the Minister and I have met across a Committee room, and yet again I do not think we are going to have any problems at all. At the last of our meetings in one of these rooms, I asked her a number of questions, and I am incredibly grateful to her and her office for getting back to me so quickly. I think that illustrates the very good working relationship between the Opposition and the Government in this respect.
The Opposition are delighted with all these measures. I was struggling to work out some complicated questions in order to make the Minister work for her office, but the only one I could come up with is on the timeline. She made reference to some further statutory instruments that will be introduced, and it would be very helpful if we had an idea of the timeline for when the process will be completed.
Aside from that, we are very happy to support the draft regulations and I thank the Minister very much for all those acronyms—I am learning more and more each time we meet.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments about our constructive relationship. I am sure there will be many fights in these rooms, but they are not happening yet. He will be delighted to know that we will be back here at 6 o’clock to consider a similarly simple statutory instrument.
We intend to lay the statutory instrument providing the legal framework for the PISCES sandbox before Parliament by May next year. As the shadow Minister will probably know, the testing of new technology and practices is uncertain, so there may be further FMI sandboxes with a different focus that require changes to legislation that have not been considered previously. Therefore, it is not really possible to set out a timeline, but the statutory instrument for PISCES will be laid by May 2025.
As I am sure the shadow Minister will recognise, the draft regulations are an important step forward in the development of the digital securities sandbox and future financial market infrastructure sandboxes such as PISCES, which is world leading and very impressive for our Government, and will be a good thing for the financial services sector. The draft regulations will ensure that FMI sandboxes are able to facilitate innovation while ensuring that all the risks are proportionately managed, as well as ensuring that firms are incentivised to participate.
The changes will be laid out in detail in a negative statutory instrument that we intend to lay before Parliament. We will be modifying the money laundering regulations to ensure that activity in the digital securities sandbox is not caught under the definition of cryptoassets in the MLRs. We will also provide the shadow Minister with a timeline on that, if that makes sense.
I thank Members for participating in the debate. I hope they found it informative, I hope they will learn all the acronyms, like I have, and I hope they will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) Order 2024
(3 days, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
The Government have made clear their support for building societies—mutually-owned financial institutions that specialise in savings and mortgage products—as part of our commitment to modernise the Building Societies Act 1986. The draft order forms part of that commitment. It makes small but much-needed updates to the Building Societies Act 1986 to remove some unnecessary corporate governance burdens for the sector, aligning requirements with those provided to companies operating under the Companies Act 2006. Overall, the instrument supports the Government’s ambition to unlock the full potential of the mutuals sector to help drive innovation and inclusive growth across our country.
The order modernises the 1986 Act by making provisions in two places. First, it amends sections 60 and 61 of the 1986 Act to remove all references to the normal or compulsory retirement age of 70 for directors. This updates the 1986 Act, bringing it in line with the Companies Act 2006, providing building societies with greater flexibility in appointing directors and ending an outdated age-based restriction. After the amendment provided by this statutory instrument, section 60(11) and section 60(13) of the 1986 Act will specify that all directors must step down after three years, regardless of age, although they may be re-elected; members will therefore still be able to scrutinise the performance of all directors, even after the removal of the age requirement.
Secondly, the order amends section 80 of the 1986 Act, changing the current requirement for the balance sheet of a building society to be signed by two directors and the chief executive officer to allow one director to sign the balance sheet on behalf of the board. This further aligns the 1986 Act with the requirement for companies under the Companies Act 2006, removing an unnecessary burden for building societies. The amendment will not impact on the reliability and accountability of the process, as the full board of a building society is still required to approve the annual reports and accounts, and the signing director’s responsibility is not enhanced by the change.
Together, these amendments will modernise the Building Societies Act 1986 and ensure that building societies have the same modern flexibilities as retail banks operating under the Companies Act 2006. The changes have been supported by the building society sector. For instance, the proposal to amend the Act to allow one director to sign the balance sheet on behalf of the board was welcomed by the sector in a consultation published under the previous Government in December 2021. Although the removal of the retirement age for building society directors was not part of that consultation, it was proposed by the Building Societies Association and another large building society as part of their responses, as seen in the consultation responses published in December 2022. It is therefore evident that the amendments have the support of the sector.
As I mentioned earlier, the order forms part of the Government’s commitment to modernise the Building Societies Act 1986. Some of us may remember that the Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Act 2024 achieved Royal Assent earlier this year. It allows for real-time virtual participation at building society general meetings and provides the Government with powers to introduce subsequent legislation to further modernise the 1986 Act. The Government will look to introduce the changes enabled by that Act in due course.
To conclude—I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, once again, as we meet for the second time today—the order will make small but important updates to the Building Societies Act 1986, modernising the Act to align certain corporate governance requirements with the same flexibilities afforded to companies under the Companies Act 2006. It will help to deliver on the Government’s commitment to unlock the full potential of the mutuals sector through ensuring that the legislation supports building societies to grow. I hope that colleagues will help me in supporting the amendments; I commend the order to the Committee.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
This Committee may go on record as one of the swiftest yet!
It makes perfect sense to modify the Building Societies Act 1986 to bring it in line with the Companies Act 2006. We have no objection to the order. It is possible that it may only affect one building society, but none the less it would be fairly old-fashioned to have two separate sets of rules depending on which type of business we are discussing. We are behind the order, which makes a huge amount of sense. I will not take any more of the Committee’s time.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Ecuador) Order 2024
(3 days, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Ecuador) Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Mrs Harris.
The order before the Committee gives effect to a first-time double taxation convention with Ecuador. It will provide a clear and fair framework for the taxation and administration of cross-border transactions between the United Kingdom and Ecuador, benefiting businesses and the economies of both countries by removing barriers to cross-border trade and investment. The DTC is based mainly on the OECD model tax convention, which contains a set of internationally agreed principles that make DTCs easier for businesses to understand and for tax administrations to apply.
I turn now to some of the main features of the DTC. It provides limits on the withholding taxes that can be charged on dividends, royalties and interest, which in many circumstances are less than the tax rates applied under Ecuador’s domestic law. There are specific exemptions for dividends and interest paid to pension funds and for interest paid to financial institutions, which will be of benefit to UK pension funds and to banks with interests in Ecuador.
The DTC limits the circumstances in which the trading profits of an enterprise based in one country may be taxed in the other country. That will be welcomed, for instance, by United Kingdom businesses looking to provide services to customers in Ecuador, such as in the life sciences, infrastructure and financial services sectors, as it will ensure that businesses will not face Ecuadorian withholding taxes on some payments for those services.
The agreement contains all the minimum standards introduced by the joint OECD and G20 project on base erosion and profit shifting. Those standards ensure that DTCs are not used to avoid or evade tax, and include a statement in the preamble that it is not a purpose of a DTC to create opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance, and a principal purpose test that denies treaty benefits in cases of abuse.
Another anti-avoidance rule included in the new treaty is a tie-breaker provision for determining corporate residence based on agreement by the competent authorities of each country. The DTC also allows for the exchange of information between the two countries to facilitate tax transparency and provides for mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts.
Together, these features strengthen both countries’ defences against tax avoidance and evasion. The order includes dispute resolution provisions that go beyond the minimum standard set out in the final recommendations of the BEPS project by providing that, where a taxpayer considers that the DTC has not been applied correctly, they can present their case to either tax authority, and not just where they are resident.
In summary, this agreement is one that the UK can welcome, fulfilling a long-held ambition to conclude a DTC with Ecuador and filling another gap in the UK’s network of DTCs in Latin America. It will provide a stable, long-term framework within which trade and investment between the United Kingdom and Ecuador can flourish. I commend the order to the Committee.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I echo the Minister in saying it is a pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
The Minister will be pleased to know that it is not the intention of the official Opposition to divide the Committee on this tax treaty. However, I have a number of questions —he may be able to answer them today, but I am perfectly happy if he wants to reply in writing subsequently.
This treaty follows on from the agreement signed in Quito on 6 August this year. Can the Minister provide us with an update on the status of Ecuador’s ratification of this treaty? As I understand it, that will be subject to its National Assembly, but there are elections to the National Assembly coming up in March next year and the President only holds a majority through a coalition. I would be grateful for any update on the status and expected date of ratification.
I echo the Minister’s comments about the importance of stimulating exports and trade with Ecuador. We have very limited trade at the moment, and hopefully this agreement will help from the point of view of both imports and exports, and of direct investment.
The Minister mentioned that this agreement was based on the OECD model tax convention. That model, as hon. Members probably know, has been in place for 30 or 40 years—maybe even longer—and many tax treaties around the world are signed around these conventions. However, there is a slight deviation in part of this agreement. In paragraph 5.16 of the explanatory memorandum, relating to article 5 on permanent establishment, it says that the agreement
“has a wider scope than the OECD Model, reflecting Ecuador’s preference. In particular, it has a lower threshold of 183 days for a building site to give a PE. It also deems there to be a PE where services are provided by an enterprise in the other territory for more than 183 days in total in a 12-month period.”
As there is very little for the Committee to note that is different from the OECD model, I hope the Minister does not mind me asking about that one point I have highlighted.
Furthermore, Ecuador is, as best I know, not a member of the OECD, or certainly has not signed up to pillar 2, the agreement on global minimum taxation for multinational enterprises. Any implication in this tax treaty relating to Ecuador’s status on that question would be of interest, but again that is not a matter for us to divide the Committee on today.
James Murray
I welcome the comments from the shadow Minister and his party’s support for this double taxation treaty.
First, on Ecuador’s ratification of the DTC, Ecuador has indicated that it will complete the process by the end of this year, which I think gives the shadow Minister the timetable he was seeking. If this Committee supports the DTC today, it will take effect from 1 January 2025, as long as the necessary diplomatic exchanges are all completed in time. Taxpayers and businesses in the UK will be able to benefit from the DTC provisions from that date.
The other questions the shadow Minister asked related to the explanatory memorandum and the relationship with pillar 2. There are provisions taken from the United Nations model tax convention, which many developing countries prefer, and which are present in many of the UK’s treaties. They reflect the support for developing countries as they want to engage in the process. Ecuador’s approach to pillar 2 more broadly is probably a question more for the Government of Ecuador than for me but, as the shadow Minister will know, we are committed to the effective delivery of pillar 2 in the UK and to ensuring that the necessary legislation is put in place. Indeed, there is legislation on that in the current Finance Bill, so I look forward potentially to his support for that Bill when it comes to the Chamber.
To conclude, this statutory instrument to approve the double taxation treaty will ensure that we have a modern DTC in place in both countries, providing a stable foundation for investment and growth, while at the same time, crucially, making it harder for people to avoid their taxes in the UK if that is something they are trying to do. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his contribution and I hope the Committee will see fit to support the order.
Question put and agreed to.