Equitable Life Payment Scheme

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2015 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

As of 31 January 2015, the scheme has now issued payments surpassing £1 billion to 896,367 policyholders.

The figures are broken down as follows:

412,445 payments to individual investors have been issued totalling £560.3 million. 37,764 with-profits annuitants (WPAs) or their estates have been issued payments by the scheme. These initial and subsequent payments total £271.4 million.

446,158 payments totalling £169.3 million have been issued to those who bought their policy through their company pension scheme.

There are now approximately 142,000 policyholders who are due a payment but where the scheme has not yet been able to trace or validate their address.

The scheme has gone to significant lengths to trace eligible policyholders. It remains committed to tracing and paying as many eligible policyholders as possible, and will continue to consider all proportionate actions it can take to do this, including working with the Department for Work and Pensions.

The scheme encourages any policyholders who believe themselves to be eligible to call the scheme on: 0300 0200 150. The scheme can verify the identity of most policyholders on the telephone, which means any payment due can usually be received within two weeks.

[HCWS298]

Insurance Bill [Lords]

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

Part 1 sets out some definitions for the Bill and is purely technical but, with your indulgence, Mr Chope, may I say again that this is a non-controversial Law Commission Bill, on which we had a constructive debate last week in the Second Reading Committee, and which has been scrutinised by a special Public Bill Committee in the other House? I hope that we can agree that clause 1 should stand part and move on to discuss the substantive clauses, taking each part in turn.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Minister has outlined, this is a non-controversial Bill overall, and we did indeed debate and discuss it last week. I have no issue with clause 1 and think that it is important to get on to the other areas of the Bill on which the Minister might wish to answer some questions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Application and interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 3 to 8 stand part.

That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.

[Andrea Leadsom]

As I explained to the Second Reading Committee, part 2 concerns the duty on prospective policyholders to disclose information to the insurer, which allows the insurer to assess and price the risk accurately. However, the existing law can be difficult to understand and even more difficult to comply with fully. A failure to provide all material information allows the insurer to refuse all claims under the contract.

Under the Bill, policyholders still have a duty to disclose information, and they should make an active search for relevant information, but insurers might need to ask the policyholder questions if they require further clarification. If a policyholder fails to make a fair presentation of the risk, there is a new system of proportionate remedies for the insurer, under schedule 1 to the Bill, based on what the insurer would have done had the failure not occurred.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 10 and 11 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 3 deals with insurance warranties and similar terms. An insurance warranty is typically a promise by the policyholder to do something that mitigates the risk. Under the current law, any breach of warranty completely discharges the insurer from liability from the point of breach. That is so even if the breach is remedied before any loss is suffered and if the breached term had nothing to do with the loss. The insurer’s remedy therefore often seems unsuitable and too punitive. The Bill provides that an insurer will be liable for insured losses arising after a breach of warranty has been remedied. It also prevents an insurer from refusing payment on the basis of a breached term that could have had no bearing on the risk of the loss that actually occurred, such as where a warranty concerning a fire alarm is breached and the insured then suffers a flood in the insured property. The Bill also abolishes “basis of the contract” clauses. These clauses convert every statement made by a policyholder on a proposal form into a warranty.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Again, it has been helpful to hear the Minister’s comments. We have no difficulty with these clauses.

On clause 9, under the current law, an insurer may add a declaration to a non- consumer insurance proposal form or policy, stating that the insured warrants the accuracy of all the answers given or that such answers form the “basis of the contract”. That has the legal effect of converting representations into warranties. The insurer is discharged from liability for claims if the insured made any misrepresentation, even if it was immaterial and did not induce the insurer to enter into the contract. The Law Commission gave the example of a claim for flooding being refused, as the Minister suggested, because the insured had failed to install the right model of burglar alarm. The clause seeks to put an end to this practice by abolishing “basis of the contract” clauses in non-consumer insurance. Clause 10 replaces the existing remedy for breach of a warranty in an insurance contract.

Clause 11 was initially not included in the Bill. That gave rise to the introduction in the other place of a new clause that replicated a similar clause originally included by the Law Commission pertaining to situations in which an insured had breached a term of contract but could show that

“its breach of the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.”

In the Lords Committee, some expressed the view that this omission was an error. The Minister, Lord Newby, explained that the clause as originally drafted was

“too controversial to go through the special procedure for uncontroversial Law Commission Bills.”

He did, however, admit that it was

“difficult to argue against the policy and to say that insurers should be entitled to refuse liability for a loss that is of a completely different nature from that contemplated by the breached term.”

At the Government’s prompting, the Law Commission submitted a new draft, which became the current clause 11 and which was

“intended to minimise the uncertainty inherent in the first formulation”.

The clause acts to rectify the situation prior to the Bill when the actual nature of a breach of term was irrelevant. This has been a helpful process to ensure that that piece of tidying up was done. On that basis, we have no problem with these clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12

Remedies for fraudulent claims

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 13 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Fraud is a serious and expensive problem for insurers and innocent policyholders alike. According to industry statistics, policyholders currently pay an additional £50 on every insurance policy because of the cost of fraud to insurers. The Bill therefore strengthens and clarifies the civil law aspect of the Government’s drive to combat fraudulent claims by policyholders. The Bill sets out clear statutory remedies for the insurer where the policyholder has made a fraudulent claim. It affirms the common law position that the policyholder forfeits the fraudulent claim. The insurer has no liability to pay any element of it and can reclaim anything it paid before it knew about the fraud.

The Bill also clarifies an area of uncertainty, in that the insurer may choose to refuse any claim arising after the fraudulent act. However, previous valid claims should be paid in full. Finally, the Bill gives the insurer the equivalent remedies against a fraudulent member of a group insurance policy.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The Minister has again clearly outlined what the clauses do. As she said, clause 12 sets out the insurer’s remedies where the insured makes a fraudulent claim. It puts the common law rule of forfeiture on a statutory footing. Where the insured commits a fraud against the insurer, the insurer is not liable to pay the insurance claim to which the fraud relates. Where the insurer has already paid out insurance moneys on the claim and later discovers the fraud, the insurer may recover those moneys from the insured. As we have heard, that provides the insurer with a further remedy giving it an option to treat the contract as if it had been terminated at the time of the “fraudulent act”. That does not apply where a third party commits a fraud against the insurer or the insured, such as where a fraudulent claim is made against an insured party who seeks recovery from its insurer under a liability policy.

Clause 13 gives the insurer the remedies where there is fraud by one member of a group scheme. Again, we have no difficulty with these clauses standing part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Good Faith

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will convenient to discuss clauses 15 to 18 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 5 deals with two separate matters: the principle of good faith and the ability of parties to contract out of the provisions of the Bill.

Clause 14 retains the statutory and common law principle that a contract of insurance is one predicated on good faith. However, the clause abolishes avoidance of the contract as the remedy for breach, recognising that avoidance is capable of operating very harshly against policyholders.

The provisions are a default regime for business insurance contracts. They are expected to be appropriate for the majority of insurance contracts, but there may be circumstances when parties prefer to set out their own bespoke arrangements. However, if an insurer wishes to rely on a term that will operate more harshly against the policyholder than the Bill otherwise provides, clauses 16 and 17 require it to act transparently when the contract is made, by ensuring that the meaning of the alternative provision is clear, and by drawing the attention of the policyholder to it. In so far as the Bill applies to consumers rather than businesses, it is a mandatory regime. Insurers are not entitled to contract out of its provisions to the detriment of consumers.

[Cathy Jamieson]

Under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, insurance contracts are ones of “utmost good faith”. Clause 14 removes avoidance of the contract as a remedy for breach of that duty of good faith, both from the 1906 Act and at common law. The intention of clause 14 is that good faith will remain an interpretative principle, with section 17 of the 1906 Act and the common law continuing to provide that insurance contracts are contracts of good faith.

Clauses 15 and 16 prohibit insurers from inserting in an insurance contract terms that would leave the insured—be they a consumer or a non-consumer—in a worse position than that required by the Bill.

Clause 16 defines transparency in respect of what an insurer must do to draw the insured’s attention to the disadvantageous terms of the contract. Clause 17 sets out the transparency requirements. For example, the insurer should take sufficient steps to draw disadvantageous terms to the insured’s attention within a reasonable time frame prior to their entering into the contract, but when an insured has knowledge of the term, they may not claim that the insurer has not brought it to their attention. Clause 18 deals with the insurer’s remedies where a member of a group insurance contract makes a fraudulent claim. Again, we do not think that these clauses are controversial and we are content for them to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Power to change meaning of “relevant person” for purposes of 2010 Act

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Christopher Chope)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 20 and schedule 2 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 6 covers a topic that is distinct from insurance contract law. It amends the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 and will assist injured parties who have claims against parties that are now defunct where insurance was in place to cover such claims. As I said in the Second Reading Committee, part 6 will make it easier for mesothelioma sufferers to obtain compensation due from insolvent employers.

The Bill allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to add or remove circumstances in which a person will fall within the provisions of the 2010 Act. The intention in the first instance is to use this power to add insolvency and other similar events to the 2010 Act. Draft regulations are being prepared by the Ministry of Justice. Once the first set of regulations are made, the 2010 Act can be commenced. The Government are committed to bringing the 2010 Act into force as soon as practicable.

[Cathy Jamieson]

In the Second Reading Committee, I welcomed the fact that part 6 gives mesothelioma sufferers the opportunity to be dealt with in a timely fashion and to receive the justice they deserve. It is a terrible condition that many people have suffered as a work-related illness. We should do everything possible to support them.

Clause 19 inserts a new section into the 2010 Act. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations adding or removing circumstances in which a person is a “relevant person” for the purposes of the Act, provided that the Secretary of State considers that the proposed circumstances involve dissolution, insolvency or financial difficulty, or are similar to those for the time being prescribed in sections 4 to 7 of the 2010 Act. That seems sensible and we have no problem with the clauses or the schedule standing part of the Bill.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Will the provision affect third-party cover under the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the level of insurance premiums taken out for motor insurance? May I also ask the Minister, en passant, to pay tribute to the Law Commission, on whose work this Bill is based?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that this part of the Bill is designed to assist those who have insurance claims against parties that are now defunct, where insurance was originally in place to cover such claims. In theory, that could cover a motor insurance claim, but it is certainly not designed specifically to that end. Likewise, the cost of motor insurance will be determined by claims by the insurance companies themselves, so it is not envisaged that this will affect the cost of motor insurance.

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Law Commission has done an excellent job. Essentially, the Bill makes the insurance market more effective and fairer.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

Provision consequential on Part 2

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Temporary Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 22 and 23 stand part.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Part 7 deals with technical matters such as commencement, territorial extent and consequential amendments to existing legislation. The Bill repeals or amends various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, which are superseded by provisions in parts 2 and 3. Clause 23 provides that the Bill extends to the whole of the United Kingdom, and that the provisions on insurance contract law will come into force 18 months after Royal Assent.

From a practical perspective, the new provisions will not apply to existing insurance contracts, but rather to new contracts and variations agreed after the Bill comes into effect. The regulation-making power on the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 will come into force two months after Royal Assent.

[Cathy Jamieson]

As the Minister has said, clause 21 makes provisions consequential on part 2 and amends or repeals various sections of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, as well as the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012. She has also confirmed that clause 22 ensures that those provisions relating to fair presentation and good faith apply only to insurance contracts entered into after the end of the period of 18 months from the Bill’s entry into force. Clause 23 ensures that the Bill extends to the whole of the UK, apart from consequential provisions in clause 21 relating to Northern Ireland. Again, we are happy for these clauses to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 and 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

[Andrea Leadsom]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am grateful to hon. Members for the useful debates on the Bill, and glad to have taken it forward based on proposals by the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, to whom I reiterate my thanks. The Bill was rigorously scrutinised in the other place, and demonstrates the usefulness of the special parliamentary procedure for Law Commission Bills.

Together with the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 that preceded it, the Bill marks the biggest reform to insurance contract law in more than a century. It is the product of careful consultation and consideration, and as a result it is well supported. It demonstrates the Government’s commitment to maintaining and growing the UK’s insurance industry both at home and abroad. I am grateful to all insurers, businesses and others who have supported the Bill, and to those who have participated in the Law Commission’s project and the legislative process. I am also grateful for the contribution made by the Opposition in both Houses towards the smooth passage of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the chance to put on the record the fact that the Government support the principle that insurers should make payment of valid claims within a reasonable time, and that they should be liable for compensation where appropriate should they fail to do so. The Government are always looking at ways to support and improve the position of the UK insurance industry, and it is hoped that legislative opportunities will arise to include that measure with other insurance-related provisions.

As the hon. Lady will know, the Government undertook a targeted consultation of insurance industry stakeholders in summer 2014 to assess support for the Bill and for a provision on late payment. The results of the consultation suggested that the late payment provision was not suitable for a Bill going through Parliament under the special procedure reserved for uncontroversial Law Commission Bills. The main arguments against such a provision were that it could lead to speculative litigation, or have the unwelcome effect of being used to exert undue pressure to expedite claim settlement, and those costs have not yet been quantified. Furthermore, adequate customer protections already exist, so the problems of late payment are worse in theory than in practice. The Financial Conduct Authority is currently undertaking a thematic review of the handling of commercial claims, and the issue is being considered from a regulatory angle.

As the hon. Lady recognised, not all recommendations made by the Law Commission are suitable for the special procedure for non-controversial Bills, and that provision was omitted from the Bill specifically to ensure that the special procedure was not abused. I repeat, however, that the Government support the principle that insurers should make payment of valid claims within a reasonable time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

National Insurance cOntributions Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Insurance Contributions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Mark Lancaster)

National Insurance Contributions bill (programme) (No.2)

Ordered,

That the following provisions shall apply to the National Insurance Contributions Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 September 2014 (National Insurance Contributions Bill (Programme)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Lancaster).

Time Stamps (Foreign Exchange)

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) on securing this debate on the incredibly important subject of foreign exchange manipulation. He will have been as disgusted as I was to learn about the benchmark rigging that has gone on in financial markets and the various tales of banking misconduct that have shocked and disgusted everyone. I assure him that I do not think that the Treasury or the Bank of England are naive in their determination to weed out bad practice.

By way of background, the foreign exchange market underpins the global financial system. It enables international trade in goods and services, cross-border investment and monetary policy, so it is critical to ensure that it is well functioning and fair for the benefit of countries, businesses and consumers. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the UK is the largest single market for foreign exchange trading. In 2013, more than 40% of global foreign exchange trading took place in the UK, supporting an enormous number of jobs and enormous investment in this country.

The foreign exchange market is one of the most deep and liquid markets. It has contributed to efficient wholesale markets in which the turnover can be as high as $2 trillion a day in the UK alone. However, it is vital that all end users can benefit from the market, so we welcome the growth of specialist foreign exchange providers that compete with existing banks for the foreign exchange business of smaller businesses and retail consumers.

On tackling market misconduct, we expect firms operating in foreign exchange markets to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. Where they do not do so, we will take action to prevent and punish bad behaviour, as shown by the recent enforcement actions taken by the Financial Conduct Authority against five banks. The attempts by some banks to manipulate certain foreign exchange benchmarks were totally unacceptable and disgraceful. The Government and the regulators have taken tough action to punish such behaviour and prevent such scandals from happening in the future. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Serious Fraud Office has opened criminal investigations into certain types of market misconduct, and those investigations are ongoing.

First, the Government established the FCA with a specific remit of focusing on the conduct of our financial sector. Secondly, we have laid before Parliament a statutory instrument to extend regulation to the key foreign exchange benchmark: the WM/Reuters London 4 pm closing spot rate. The manipulation of that and six further financial benchmarks will be a criminal offence from 1 April 2015. Thirdly, we have established the fair and effective markets review to conduct a comprehensive and forward-looking assessment of how wholesale financial markets operate, to help to restore trust in those markets in the wake of a number of recent high-profile abuses, and to influence the international debate on trading practices. The review will examine in particular how the wholesale fixed-income, currency and commodity financial markets operate. It will provide recommendations on how the fairness and effectiveness of such markets can be improved.

The Government recognise that market structure and transparency play an important role in making markets more effective. Although the foreign exchange market is predominately an over-the-counter market in which transactions occur bilaterally between market participants, over the past 10 years it has been at the forefront of the electronic trading revolution. The electronic trading side now accounts for more than 60% of foreign exchange trading in spot markets, which has brought significant improvements in efficiency and transparency to market participants.

The use of electronic trading is most prevalent in the wholesale market, however, so it is right for us to consider whether the process of technological development has gone far enough to improve the fairness and effectiveness of markets, or whether we need to take further steps. The principle that how a transaction will be priced should be understood by market participants at the time when they enter into the transaction should always apply.

To deal specifically with time-stamping, the hon. Gentleman argued that if firms were required to provide time stamps for foreign exchange transactions that do not occur at the time of any agreement to enter into such a transaction, it could bring additional transparency to the market. He is of course right that time-stamping would prove the point at which the trade was done. High-quality record keeping is integral to how all financial services firms, including foreign exchange dealers, should organise themselves and operate, so I agree that it is important for firms to keep appropriate records of transactions with clients.

Time-stamping, however, presents some practical challenges. First, the key one is that market participants can use the time stamp only if they have access to a data feed of foreign exchange market prices, but such reference data are not publicly available other than at significant cost. Furthermore, as transactions are undertaken bilaterally, there is no central market for all foreign exchange transactions, so any consolidated tape of transactions would capture only a part of the market. The price of such transactions would also not necessarily be directly comparable. In foreign exchange, the price of each transaction may take into account a range of factors specific to that transaction, such as assessments of creditworthiness.

Secondly, when the foreign exchange dealer acted as agent, market participants would need to understand how the transaction had been priced to understand whether they were charged accurately. The interbank rate cannot be expected to be available to all market participants, for example.

Thirdly, when the foreign exchange dealer acts as principal, it could be argued that what is more important than a time stamp is access to a range of competitive quotes, which indicates that the issue of time-stamping transactions needs to be considered in the wider context of market structure and competition.

Clearly, the main purpose of a time stamp would be to create an audit trail for a market participant to detect mispricing of foreign exchange transactions. We should be clear, however, that if clients were misled about the pricing of foreign exchange transactions, such an act would be fraudulent.

I will talk a bit more about the fair and effective markets review, which I hope will give the hon. Gentleman some comfort.

[Austin Mitchell]

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but the difficulties that she has posed are not insuperable—they can be overcome. A time stamp is easier with electronic trading than with other forms of trading, but it should be used in all kinds of trades, because if there is a time stamp the client has the ability to look at the price range that day. The client might not know the total trading, but he can look at the price range and see what time the transaction was made, so he will know whether he was getting a fair deal and a proper price. That is the important thing—to put the knowledge in the hands of the consumer. The difficulties can easily be got around with a will to do so. The question is, why has the Bank of England been allowed to drag its feet on the issue for so long? Why not put that in straight away?

[Andrea Leadsom]

All I can do is repeat what I said, which is that the interbank price is one price, but that will not be the price for a retail investor, such as someone going on holiday or a small business. If we time-stamp a transaction, we will have to have the specific price of that transaction at a given time, and that information is simply not available. For the time stamp to be useful, we would have to know what the market was at that precise time. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out himself, a few basis points make a world of difference to the profits for the trader, so if one were minded to rig the price for a consumer or a business, even a sizeable one, and to commit fraud, even a time stamp need not prevent the fraudulent activity, simply because it would be difficult to pin down what the actual price should have been.

The Government established the fair and effective markets review so that careful analysis of the fixed-income, currency and commodity markets could be undertaken. Part of the review will be to consider whether there should be further regulatory tools available in foreign exchange markets, including whether there is a need for further criminal sanctions. The review will also consider the market structure and whether it can be improved through regulatory intervention or market-led action. Obviously the Government cannot prejudge the outcome of the review, but those conducting it will be well aware of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman and will be taking his views into account. The Government will consider the recommendations of the review once it reports in June and will provide a response.

In conclusion, the time-stamping of transactions needs to be considered in the context of improving the overall fairness and effectiveness of the foreign exchange market. Foreign exchange markets are by their nature the most global of all the financial markets, so a consistent international approach to their regulation is essential. Where action is warranted, the UK should definitely lead the way in calling for and delivering it. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman of our commitment to ensure a fair and effective foreign exchange market—one that protects the customer while keeping the UK’s leading position internationally.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

2. What recent representations he has made to the EU on the cap on bank bonuses.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

The Government keep their opposition to the EU-wide cap on bonuses, but we withdrew our legal challenge in November 2014 after it became clear that it was not likely to succeed. We believe that the cap is flawed, and will just serve to put up fixed salaries, but instead of pursuing the legal challenge we are looking at other ways of building a system of pay in the banking system that only rewards excellence and clearly promotes responsibility.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Can the Minister tell the House how much the Chancellor spent on legal fees alone in that failed legal challenge? Was that not a huge waste of money when the priority should have been to help those people most in need?

[Andrea Leadsom]

No. The amount spent was £43,000. The Government believe fundamentally that we need to have the toughest regime in the world of any global financial centre on pay, and that is what we have. We have ensured that bankers will be remunerated in future on performance and that pay can be clawed back. We have put in place a system that is far better and far more accountable than anything that the previous Government attempted.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

In the light of all the hard work by the Government to ensure that bonuses are held back by banks to secure better behaviour by staff and greater stability for banks, is not the bonus cap a crude measure that will increase bank instability and bad behaviour by bankers?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Government wanted to challenge that cap because it would push up fixed pay, which means bankers being paid not for performing but for simply turning up and raises prudential risks associated with higher fixed costs. It was vital to the interests of this important sector to the UK that we introduced a better regime, and I am delighted that the Chancellor has written to the Governor of the Bank of England in his role on the Financial Stability Board to ask him to look at other ways of ensuring accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the further steps which are necessary to ensure the fair treatment of defined contribution pension customers in response to the recent market reports published by the Financial Conduct Authority; and if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing a second line of defence protection for such pension schemes.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

We welcome the Financial Conduct Authority’s announcement yesterday that it will introduce new rules in April to protect consumers accessing their pension pot. The rules will introduce a second line of defence, with pension providers required to give consumers wanting to access their pension pot very clear risk warnings and to highlight the fact that guidance from Pension Wise or regulated advice can help them to avoid making a poorly informed decision.

[Nigel Mills]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I welcome the fact that the FCA, perhaps at the last minute, recognised there was an issue and took the right action yesterday. What more will she do to ensure that when people make free choices about their investments after April, they buy the right thing, not make a terrible mistake?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on expressing the importance of a second line of defence. The Government are determined to give pensioners the opportunity to make their own decisions about what to do with their pension savings. Nevertheless, it is vital to ensure that they have reasonable protections.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

There were reports yesterday that some people who exercise these rights might face large tax bills that they did not know about. Will the Minister be absolutely clear about what measures will be put in place to ensure that people are not disadvantaged, because she knows, as I do, that people are already being approached informally to get them to exercise these rights?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I reassure the hon. Lady that we have sought to give people the opportunity to make their own decisions about what to do with their lifelong savings. That is far better than in the past, when they were effectively told, “You buy an annuity and that’s that.” We are putting in place clear protections, with a criminal measure on scamming and on pretending to be the Government’s pensions guidance service, and there will be proper guidance, with fully qualified guiders who are able to help people through the process. There is now a further line of defence, because pension providers will be required to point out to people the vital importance of taking guidance or regulated advice.

[Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)]

9. What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of recent trends in unemployment figures.

Financial Services Regulators

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

The recommendations from the review into the enforcement decision-making arrangements at the financial regulators were announced on 18 December 2014. I am today depositing a copy of the review report in the Library of the House.



The review report is also available online at: http://www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements.

[HCWS207]

Diverted Profits Tax

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and I wish you a happy new year. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing this debate on such an important subject. As a number of colleagues have pointed out, the new measure is designed to ensure that Britain is a very competitive place—in fact, our ambition is to be the best place in the world to start up and run a business. If a company comes to this country, we will charge it low tax rates, but it will be expected to pay. That is what lies behind the measure: to ensure that companies pay that fair rate of tax.

The Government are working to create the most competitive tax system in the G20—a simple, competitive and fair tax system that will support economic growth and investment. However, we then expect companies operating in the UK to pay these fair and competitive taxes, so we are taking action both domestically and internationally. It is not one or the other—one does not rule out the other, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) suggested it may. We are trying to address concerns about some businesses paying little or no tax on profits made in the UK.

When this Government came to power, Britain had one of the least competitive business tax regimes in Europe. Since 2010, the Government have introduced a series of tax reforms to boost competiveness, such as the patent box, increasing the generosity of research and development reliefs, modernising the UK’s controlled foreign companies regime, and cutting corporation tax from 28% to 21%—next year, it will fall to 20%, the lowest rate in the G20.

The corporation tax reforms were a central plank of our economic strategy, and that strategy is working: growth, jobs and investment are all moving in the right direction. An increasing number of multinational businesses are locating activities in the UK, including companies such as Brit Insurance and Hitachi Rail Europe. The UK is one of the most competitive and attractive countries when it comes to deciding where to base a business.

It is clear that the tax reforms we have made since 2010 are supporting the economic recovery, and that our plan to cut corporation tax again to 20% will lead to more jobs and investment in the UK. Nine out of 10 UK businesses say the corporation tax rate cuts delivered since 2010 have been good for UK competitiveness.

However, as all colleagues have pointed out, there are real public concerns about unfairness in the system, whereby some companies, particularly large multinationals, are seen to be aggressively avoiding tax in the UK. It is vital that the public have confidence in the tax system, and that the tax rules treat both companies and individuals fairly and consistently, without leaving them scope to avoid their obligations. As we seek to return the public finances to balance and reduce the deficit, it is also important to make sure that we collect all the tax that is due. For those reasons, we are taking action, both domestically and internationally, to reform the tax rules and tackle corporation tax avoidance.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked whether we are therefore giving up on the international tax framework, and of course, as she will know, that is not the case. The current international tax rules were first developed in the 1920s and desperately need reforming, so that they continue to support free trade and ensure a level playing field for businesses, but also to make sure that they address weaknesses such as companies playing different regimes off against each other to avoid paying tax on their profits anywhere at all.

The UK has taken a lead on the international stage to reform these rules and is committed to multilateral action through the G20 and the OECD to tackle the issue of base erosion and profit shifting—known as BEPS. At their summit in St Petersburg last year, the G20 leaders fully endorsed the ambitious and comprehensive BEPS action plan set out over 2014 and 2015. The individual action points are being taken forward by various OECD working parties.

The OECD BEPS project is reviewing the international tax rules to find out where they are not fit for purpose in today’s modern globalised economy. Over 40 countries are collaborating to take forward the action plan: a comprehensive two-year strategy to tackle international tax avoidance.

[Ian Swales]

We constantly hear about the G20 and the OECD, but the Netherlands, for example, is not even a member of the G20. Is the Minister concerned that all this work is going to be focused on certain countries, but that will, in itself, just lead to even more activity in countries that are not party to this process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; nevertheless, the UK is at the forefront of driving the international effort to tackle these problems—these weaknesses—in international tax laws that are very out of date. The UK is certainly doing its bit.

In line with the BEPS action plan, in September 2014 the OECD’s first set of outputs from the BEPS project were fully endorsed by the G20 Finance Ministers at their Cairns summit. In a global economy in which goods and services flow freely between countries, international co-operation, as the hon. Gentleman points out, is the only way to tackle the challenge of tax avoidance. Measures taken in Britain will not deal with the problem on their own; we must have global tax rules, too. That is why, under our Prime Minister, we have been pushing, through the G8, the G20 and the OECD, for global solutions.

[David Mowat]

Of course, that has to be the right answer, but does the Minister really believe that countries such as Luxembourg and the Republic of Ireland, which derive a considerable amount of GDP from a tax evasion strategy, will contribute to any such global effort when it is so important to their standard of living?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to all hon. Members for the points they are making about other tax jurisdictions. What the UK can do is lead the international effort and focus on what we can do to ensure that the UK’s tax base is not eroded. Therefore, although these other points are extremely important, hon. Members will realise that I cannot influence directly the tax laws that Luxembourg undertakes for itself, other than through the contribution the Government make to the international effort to put pressure on different jurisdictions.

The Chancellor announced, in the autumn statement 2014, UK action on two of the internationally agreed 2014 outputs of the BEPS project. I know that the hon. Member for Redcar supports the UK’s introducing legislation to implement the G20-OECD agreed model for country-by-country reporting, which will require multinational companies to provide tax authorities with high-level information on profit, corporation tax paid and certain indicators of economic activity for risk assessment. Draft legislation for the Finance Bill 2015 was published on 10 December 2014, with a tax information and impact note and an explanatory note.

Furthermore, a consultation document on the UK plans for implementing the G20-OECD agreed rules for neutralising hybrid mismatch arrangements—another point raised by the hon. Gentleman—was published at the autumn statement. The new rules will tackle a tax avoidance technique used by multinationals to exploit differences between countries’ tax rules to avoid paying tax in either country, or to obtain more tax relief against profits than they are entitled to.

However, the Government have gone further still. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked whether that was instead of BEPS or because we feel that BEPS will not work, but no, not at all—this is in addition. The Government have gone further to tackle tax avoidance by multinational companies operating here in the UK and to strengthen our defences against the erosion of the UK tax base. That is entirely complementary to the BEPS process. Where companies in the UK are going to extraordinary lengths to avoid paying their fair share of tax, we will act to prevent that. That is why the Government have introduced the new diverted profits tax—to counter the use of aggressive tax planning by large multinationals to avoid paying tax in the UK on profits that have been generated from economic activity here in the UK.

The diverted profits tax will be applied using a rate of 25% from 1 April 2015. The measure is targeted at contrived arrangements used to shift profits away from the UK in a manner that ensures they go untaxed or largely untaxed. The measure is designed to counter the erosion of the UK tax base as a result of complex structures that circumvent the international tax rules on permanent establishment and transfer pricing.

For example, some multinationals have gone for aggressive tax planning that involves quite complicated arrangements, such as the so-called “double Irish”—a point raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley—using group companies in other countries as conduits to route expenditure to tax havens so that profits from UK activity goes untaxed.

Specifically, the diverted profits tax applies in two situations. The first is where a foreign company carries out activities in the UK in connection with the supply of goods or services to UK customers in such a way that it avoids creating a permanent establishment, and the main purpose of that arrangement is to avoid UK tax, or a tax mismatch is secured such that the total tax derived from UK activities is significantly reduced. The second situation is where a UK company, or a foreign company with a UK permanent establishment, creates a tax mismatch by using transactions or entities that lack economic substance.

If a multinational company is found to be using those contrived arrangements to avoid tax in the UK, HMRC will issue a notice that requires the diverted profits tax to be paid up front. The legislation provides for a review period of up to 12 months, within which the multinational company will have the opportunity, among other things, to demonstrate that it was not liable for the charge or to provide information to HMRC to show that the level of disallowance of intra-group expenditure in computing the charge is wrong on normal transfer pricing principles. The measure is designed to complement our transfer pricing arrangements.

[Ian Swales]

On the second case the Minister mentions, she can be interpreted as talking about artificial financing structures—for example, moving money to Luxembourg and then loaning it back to the UK—but the briefing note says that the legislation specifically excludes such arrangements. Can she confirm that?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I think I have been quite clear about the purpose of the legislation. I am not aware of the briefing note to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I will address the point again in responses to questions, so perhaps we can deal with it then.

After the 12-month review period, if the charge has not been withdrawn, the multinational company will have the right to appeal the charge at a tax tribunal on any appropriate grounds.

There are some specific exemptions from the tax. A number of hon. Members asked who was exempted. Those will include small and medium-sized enterprises, companies with limited UK sales and the situation where arrangements give rise only to loan relationships. I will come on to that in more detail at the end of my responses to questions. The draft legislation was published on 10 December and will come into effect from 1 April. Comments from industry are of course welcome as we finalise the rules to ensure that they are clear and targeted.

As I said, the UK is fully engaged in the work to reform the international tax framework through the OECD-G20 BEPS project. The introduction of the diverted profits tax is entirely consistent with those principles and complements the ongoing international efforts in the BEPS project, which is looking to align taxing rights with economic activity.

A number of hon. Members questioned the yield that is expected or forecast from the diverted profits tax. The Office for Budget Responsibility has certified the central estimate of tax yield to be £1.35 billion over the next five years to 2019-20. That will contribute to the £31 billion that HMRC has already secured from tackling tax avoidance and evasion by large businesses since April 2010.

Let me answer some specific questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley asked whether this measure was in some way overriding UK tax treaties. I can reassure him that that is not the case. The scope of the UK’s tax treaties is limited under UK law to income tax, capital gains tax and corporation tax. The diverted profits tax is therefore not covered by those treaties, so, as a formal matter, there is no treaty override; and in fact the OECD, in the commentary on its model tax treaty, provides that states can deny the benefits of a tax treaty where arrangements have a main purpose of securing more favourable tax treatment in circumstances contrary to the object and purpose of that treaty.

My hon. Friend also asked whether the measure was compatible with EU law—he did so rather reluctantly, and I would be reluctant, too, on the matter of tax sovereignty. The diverted profits tax has been designed to comply fully with our obligations under EU law. It is aimed at structures that are clearly designed to erode the UK tax base. As such, it is an appropriate response to those who abuse EU law to divert profits from the UK. The safeguards built into the legislation provide taxpayers with a number of opportunities to demonstrate that they should not be subject to the diverted profits tax. Accordingly, we believe that this is a balanced and proportionate measure that tackles arrangements that are clearly designed for tax avoidance.

The hon. Members for Strangford, for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) asked about the specific cut-off for the diverted profits tax. I can tell them that the rules do not apply to SMEs as defined by the EU. That includes companies with fewer than 250 employees, turnover of less than or equal to €50 million and a balance sheet size of €43 million. That is consistent with our transfer pricing legislation. There are also measures that restrict the diverted profits tax if there is not much UK business going on.

My hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley and for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Of course, they will be aware that those territories are free to set their own rates. We in the UK will go through international forums in terms of influencing international tax jurisdictions, but the UK has a very clear and transparent tax policy-making process, as evidenced by this parliamentary debate. Tax is a national, sovereign matter, so individual tax jurisdictions are free to set their own tax policy. The diverted profits tax is designed to ensure that the UK’s tax base is not eroded by that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley asked whether the assessment and collection processes will really work and whether they are fair. For example, if HMRC gets a notice from a big company saying that it might be within the scope, how can it issue an initial charge notice in 30 days? Where would the information come from and so on? I can tell him that the notification of potential liability to diverted profits tax must be made within three months of the end of the company’s accounting period. The Government are still consulting on the detail of the notification requirement and would welcome comments on the drafting. However, it is likely that not all notifications will result in the issue of a preliminary notice. The preliminary notice does not create a charge, but merely warns that a charging notice may be issued and sets out estimated figures that would be included. Following the issue of the preliminary notice, the company would have 30 days to correct any factual inaccuracies in it. That would include any errors in figures on which an assumption in the notice is based.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley and the hon. Member for Strangford asked whether the provisions were drawn too broadly, such that they might catch not only the abusive structures targeted but a whole load of other, unintended taxpayers. The Government are of course open to suggestions on how the drafting of the legislation could be clarified without undermining its effectiveness. However, the calculation of the charge follows well established transfer pricing principles. Those principles are widely understood and routinely applied by businesses in pricing intra-group transactions. The only difference is that where the contrived features set out in the legislation are present, the diverted profits tax will have to be paid earlier than in a normal transfer pricing dispute.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; she is being very generous. She talked about the notification process and so on. Is she happy with our knowledge of legal entities and the fact that many of them will be outside the UK? Will HMRC be able to cope with that process?

[Andrea Leadsom]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Government have significantly increased the resources available to HMRC for this purpose, so yes, we are confident we will be able to manage this process.

There were a number of other questions, which I fear I will not have time to deal with now, about interest payments being excluded. There is a limited exemption for certain arrangements that involve only loans, and separate work is going on to look at how to ensure fairness in the measures. That matter is not being excluded, but is being looked at separately.

Hon. Members raised the question of the wholesale diversion of profits to Luxembourg. The legislation targets profit diversion only where the profit has a clear link to the UK, as I think I made clear. It would not be appropriate for the legislation to go further than that and to bring into scope profits that originate from other territories. However, the Government are strongly supportive, as I said, of the BEPS process, which aims to prevent and address this international problem.

In conclusion, I reiterate that the whole purpose of the diverted profits tax is to create in the UK the most competitive environment in which to base and run a business, including low corporation taxes, but it is a requirement of this Government that companies wishing to do business in the UK should pay those taxes and should not seek to avoid paying them.

Lloyds Banking Group (Government Shares)

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he has outlined a trading plan to sell more of the Government’s shares in Lloyds Banking Group.

This decision was made on the basis of advice from UK Financial Investments Ltd that it would be appropriate to outline a plan to gradually sell shares in the market over a period of time, in an orderly and measured way and in accordance with pre-agreed parameters. The trading plan will last for approximately six months.

The Government are committed to returning Lloyds to the private sector and getting taxpayers’ money back. A statement will be laid before Parliament with further details at the end of the plan.

Future sales will always be subject to value-for-money considerations and market conditions.

International Money Transfer Charges

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Dorries. I thank the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) for raising such an important topic. I say to her, first, that it has taken up a lot of my time since I have been in this role. It is a very complicated issue and it is very important to me that we get it right.

I also congratulate the right hon. Lady on raising the issue with the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions earlier today. As he set out, the Government are acutely aware of the importance of remittances from UK residents that are sent to their family and friends in developing countries. Annual remittances from the UK amount to more than £15 billion. In the specific case of Somalia, remittances support nearly 3.5 million people and account for approximately half of Somalia’s gross national income. Since I came to this job earlier in the year, I have therefore personally been making sure that the Government are doing everything we can to ensure that remittances continue to flow through accessible and secure channels from the UK to all regions of the world.

The House will be aware that transparency of fees and charges for financial services products and competition between providers are key priorities for the Government. Increased transparency promotes greater competition, it provides better outcomes for customers, and it helps strengthen people’s trust in financial institutions—it is fair to say that that has been somewhat shaken in previous years. Therefore, it is my firm belief that greater competition as a whole in the financial services industry will lead to greater innovation, and ultimately to better outcomes for customers.

We have put in place a huge range of programmes of reforms to support greater competition in banking. That includes putting competition at the heart of the regulatory system, with statutory competition objectives for both the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Very importantly, we have created the new Payment Systems Regulator, which will come into its full powers on 1 April 2015.

The PSR has three statutory objectives: first, to promote effective competition in the markets for payment systems and for services provided by those systems; secondly, to promote the development of innovation in payment systems, in particular the infrastructure used to operate payment systems, in the interest of customers; and thirdly, to ensure that payment systems are operated and developed in a way that considers and promotes the interests of customers.

Coming back to the specific issue that the right hon. Lady raised on the cost of remittances, I am aware that my ministerial colleagues at the Department for International Development have been considering the cost of money remittances, and they have already taken action to reduce fees. That includes action to improve the transparency of fees by supporting the pioneering price comparison website sendmoneyhome.org to increase transparency around remittance transfer costs and to stimulate competition. The average cost of sending £100 has fallen by 5.6% across 11 countries and by 28% to India. The web platform has now become fully commercialised and has been replicated in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand.

DFID has been taking action to improve inter-market co-operation. Between 2009 and 2015, DFID will support the FinMark Trust in its drive to reduce the average cost of remittance transfers from South Africa to other Southern Africa Development Community countries by 30% by 2014.

Given the concerns rightly raised by the right hon. Lady today, I plan to write to my ministerial colleagues at DFID to ask that we work together to think about what more can be done and particularly to seek an update on the points she made about the Brisbane G20 discussions. However, as I have said, this is an extremely complicated issue. She is fully aware that in recent years we have seen growing concern among banks globally about money laundering and terrorism financing, and, of course, the very real possibility of potentially crippling enforcement action against banks that fail properly to protect against these risks. The money service business sector has been particularly affected, as she knows.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the actions taken by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) and many other colleagues have also brought this issue to the attention of the House on a number of occasions.

I know that the right hon. Lady is also aware of the action group on cross-border remittances, which was set up at the start of 2014 to seek to address this worrying trend towards debanking the money service business sector. The action group is composed of Government representatives, banks, money transfer operators and industry associations. It has initiated a number of important activities to revise guidance on compliance with the money laundering regulations; to improve the understanding of money laundering and terrorism financing risks; importantly, to sustain the flow of remittances from the UK through formal channels; and particularly, to improve trust in the remittance sector.

Our banks and regulators have a very real responsibility to ensure that they are not supporting activities that could pose a threat to British citizens and undermine the progress that developing countries are making. The right approach to tackling these threats should effectively deter, detect and deal with those who seek to use the financial system, including money remitters and banks, to launder money or fund terrorism. At the same time, it should protect and support legitimate businesses and, in particular, critical lifelines for countries such as Somalia.

In conclusion, as the Prime Minister set out earlier today, this is a very complicated area, but I would like to reassure the right hon. Lady that the Government are committed to doing what we can to keep remittances flowing and the costs down.

Counter-terrorist Asset Freezing Regime

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

My noble friend the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Deighton) has today made the following written ministerial statement.

Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (“TAFA 2010”), the Treasury is required to report to Parliament, quarterly, on its operation of the UK’s asset-freezing regime mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1373.

This is the 14th report under the Act and it covers the period from 1 July 2014 to 30 September 2014. This report also covers the UK implementation of the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime and the operation of the EU asset-freezing regime in the UK under EU regulation (EC) 2580/2001 which implements UNSCR 1373 against external terrorist threats to the EU. Under the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the Al-Qaeda (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011. Under EU regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.

Annexes A and B to this statement provide a breakdown, by name, of all those designated by the UK and the EU in pursuance of UN Security Council Resolution 1373. The two individuals subject to restricted designations under section 3 of the Act are denoted by A and B.

The following table sets out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter ending 30 September 2014:

Banking Act 2009

Andrea Leadsom Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)]

The Treasury has laid before the House of Commons a report required under section 231 of the Banking Act 2009 covering the period from 1 April 2014 to 30 September 2014.

Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.