Energy Profits Levy

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Baroness Penn

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Energy Profits Levy on energy companies.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

The energy profits levy was introduced to respond to extraordinary profits in the oil and gas sector and includes an investment allowance to encourage companies to reinvest their profits in the UK. It has raised £2.8 billion to date and is expected to raise almost £26 billion by March 2028, in addition to around £25 billion from the permanent regime over the same period.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her response. We have all seen the eye-watering profits of the oil and gas companies. The energy profits levy does not treat all companies the same. Many of the largest companies pay considerably less, with their profits and extraction being largely outside the UK. This is not the same for many of the smaller domestic UK producers. Moreso, the EPL has a more favourable capital relief than the electricity generator levy. How can the Government justify a levy that gives favourable treatment to oil and gas companies over renewable developers?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s first point, he is right that the energy profits levy is applied to profits made in the UK or on the UK continental shelf. That is in line with other profit-based taxes on companies that operate in the UK and overseas. On the difference between the energy profits levy and the electricity generator levy, they are structured in completely different ways. The headline rates of those two taxes are also completely different. We have different programmes in place to ensure that we incentivise continuing investment in our renewables, which is why we have such a great track record on delivering renewable energy in the UK.

Crypto Asset Technology

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Baroness Penn

Thursday 21st July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of ensuring that crypto assets cannot be used for money laundering or, for example, for the avoidance of sanctions when it comes to Russia and its invasion of Ukraine. That is why we have brought it within our anti-money laundering regime. We have extended the scope of those rules. The SI that we were debating this week is part of the action to do so. We will also continue to work internationally on the regulation of crypto assets, because that action is needed to ensure that other jurisdictions cannot become areas where people use crypto assets for illicit finance.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard from across the House, regulation is the key to this. How stable does the Minister think that stablecoins are? Some Governments are looking at introducing a central bank digital coin. Do Her Majesty’s Government have any plans to introduce a CBDC?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My understanding is that the Bank of England is looking at the question of introducing a CBDC. In terms of stablecoins, the name derives from them being linked to other assets, rather than because of any inherent stability. We are seeking to regulate them because of that link to other assets. They may become a form of payment within the wider system, which would raise questions of financial stability and is why we have prioritised regulation in that area.

Deprived Areas

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Baroness Penn

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, a key focus of the Government’s and the NHS’s plans for reform on health is the introduction of integrated care systems, which will work by putting providers and local authorities in the position where they can join up care and focus on population health and prevention. That will be an incredibly effective way in which to address some of these public health measures, which is why we look forward to introducing our NHS Bill later this year.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.

Tax: Church Action for Tax Justice Reports

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Baroness Penn

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this important debate and thank noble Lords who have spoken for their thoughtful contributions. From listening to those contributions it is clear that many noble Lords agree that resilient, fair and responsive taxation is an essential public good. I am glad to have this opportunity to update the Committee on the Government’s work to ensure that our tax system continues fully to serve society.

However, I will start by saying a few words on the impact of Covid-19. The pandemic has affected tax revenues, but it has also highlighted the agility of our tax system to cope with unprecedented circumstances. Businesses in sectors worst affected by the crisis have benefited from VAT cuts and a business rates holiday, while our time to pay system has given financially distressed individuals the opportunity to postpone tax deadlines. The Chancellor will, in due course, take a decision on any role tax may play in returning the public finances to a sustainable footing at the Budget on 3 March. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will understand that I cannot speak any further on that today.

However, I will say a few words about the philosophy that underpins our wider tax policy. At last year’s Budget the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s ambition to build an even fairer and more sustainable tax system that helps people and families with the cost of living, funds the first-class public services they expect and creates an environment for business to succeed. However, when designing future tax policy we need to remember that the UK economy of tomorrow will be different from that of today. That is why, over the course of this Parliament, the Government are also focused on creating a tax system that is better prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century.

I will talk briefly about the Government’s work on this front, particularly in relation to areas covered by the Tax for the Common Good report. First, I turn to tax avoidance, which was raised by many noble Lords. This is an issue that is quite rightly highlighted in this document, and it is a scourge on our society, which is why we are taking significant action to ensure that companies pay the right amount of tax on their UK profits. In fact, noble Lords may recall that, at last year’s Budget, we announced a new strategy to tackle unscrupulous promoters of tax avoidance schemes. I remind noble Lords that, at 4.7%, the tax gap in the UK is at its lowest ever recorded rate, falling from 7.5% since 2005-06.

However, we also recognise that tax avoidance is a global problem, with global implications. As a result, the UK has also been helping to lead international efforts to address gaps and mismatches in the global tax system. This includes our work at the forefront of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s base erosion and profit shifting project, which seeks to prevent company profits being transferred to low- or no-tax locations. I reassure the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, that a key part of that work is ensuring that low- and middle-income countries benefit from the steps taken, not just OECD members.

I will correct a concern of the right reverend Prelate about free ports: rather than a race to the bottom, the tax offer that has been designed for them will drive growth and investment, advancing the levelling-up agenda across all four nations of the UK that noble Lords will have heard the Government talk so much about.

I will respond to the issue, raised by the right reverend Prelate, of overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which have full control over their own fiscal matters. They have the right to set their own policy to support their economies within international standards, and they have the right to determine their own tax rates. However, all Crown dependencies and overseas territories with a financial centre have made commitments to implement global standards on tax transparency.

There is no doubt that digitisation is a tax challenge for every nation. We are working hard to find a global solution through the adoption of many of the BEPS recommendations, such as corporation interest restriction rules, which raise approximately £1 billion a year, and hybrid mismatch rules, which are expected to raise £900 million between 2016-17 and 2020-21. At home, we are examining how we can ensure that high street businesses are not left at an unfair disadvantage by the switch to online payments through a review of the business rates system. On digitisation in relation to operating our own tax system, as raised by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, I totally agree with him. In our recently published 10-year tax administration strategy, we set out our plans to make a fully digital tax system that operates in as close to real time as possible.

We have heard from a number of noble Lords about the role of taxes on earnings, such as income tax and national insurance, and taxes on wealth, such as capital gains tax, as well as the interaction between those different systems. Noble Lords are correct that individuals can be subject to different tax treatments depending on whether they are employed, self-employed or working through a company structure. The OBR has noted the implications of these differences in tax treatments for individuals, who can pay very different amounts of tax while doing similar work. The Government have already taken action to reduce this disparity of treatment; for example, by reforming the taxation of dividend income, including by reducing the dividend allowance to £2,000 from £5,000. Furthermore, corporation tax has remained at 19%, rather than being reduced to 17% from April 2020, as had previously been planned.

Our approach to taxing income, earnings and wealth is an incredibly important question that we will continue to consider. The noble Lord, Lord Field, made an important point on the wider role that different taxes can play and the link between contributions and public services, as well as the public’s view of that wider link. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who said that tax is not an important part of funding our public services; I think it remains an essential part of that part of government.

The Government are committed to a fair tax system in which those with the most contribute the most. That is why the income tax system consists of three progressive rates of tax, which sit above an internationally high personal allowance. The income tax system is highly progressive: the top 1% of taxpayers are projected to pay over 29% of all income tax in 2019-20.

The Government are also proud of their record of reducing tax for working people. The personal allowance has increased by more than 90% in less than a decade, which means that a typical, basic-rate taxpayer pays over £1,200 less in income tax compared to 2010-11. As with all aspects of the tax system, the Government will keep income tax policy under review and any decisions on future changes will be taken as part of the annual budget process, in the context of the wider public finances.

Further, on the point of the progressivity of the system, in 2020-21, households in the lowest income decile will receive more than £4 in public spending for every £1 they pay in tax on average. In addition to the above changes, in April 2020 the Government increased the national insurance contribution primary threshold and lower-profits limit to £9,500, which will benefit 31 million individuals. The combined impact of income tax and NICs changes between 2010-11 and 2021 means that a typical basic-rate employee is over £1,600 better off, as I have said.

Noble Lords also touched on the issue of climate change. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, will be aware, the Treasury is carrying out a review into the transition to a net-zero economy. As a part of this work, we are exploring how we can harness the taxation system in the fight against global warming. In December, we published an interim report exploring the fiscal implications of the switch to net zero. This analysis will inform the final review document, which is due to be published later this year.

I hope that I have communicated some of this Government’s work to create a fairer and more sustainable tax system. It was a wide-ranging debate, covering work at home and internationally. We are committed to a tax system that helps people and families with the cost of living, funds first-class public services, and creates an environment for businesses to thrive. I am sure noble Lords will agree that these are laudable goals, and we are making strong progress towards them.

I finish by reassuring the right reverend Prelate on his fears on our path having left the EU. I think those fears are unfounded, and instead I endorse some of the hopes that he expressed for our path in coming years. Having left the EU, this Government’s core agenda is about levelling up across the UK. A well-functioning, fair tax system will be a key part of that.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the room.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Baroness Penn

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to a debate that was slightly longer than the one we had during the previous round of ping-pong. I will address the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and in doing so I hope to address those made by other noble Lords too.

On financial privilege, I very much welcome my noble friend Lady Noakes saying that this is not a decision by the Government but one taken by the Speaker in the House of Commons. I do not have an answer for her on whether there are any precedents for twice resisting financial privilege as a reason given by the Commons, but it must be highly unusual. This is not the place to raise further constitutional questions in bringing that principle into doubt in this Bill.

The noble and learned Lord talked about a principled basis for the spending powers being taken through this Bill. I completely agree with him on that. He spoke of consultation, the establishment of principles and advice from jointly appointed advisers. We do not propose a structure involving jointly appointed advisers, but we do plan to have the devolved Administrations represented in the governance structures for the fund. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Fox—I cannot give further details of how that will work at this stage; we will work on that with the devolved Administrations. There are further stages to come in the development of the shared prosperity fund, its governance and the principles around it, after this debate and in future. As I have said to noble Lords before, the fund will not be introduced until the following financial year, which gives us time to work through some of these details.

I hope I have made it clear to noble Lords that the Government have already been engaging in consultations on the shared prosperity fund. To date, we have conducted 25 engagement events across the UK, attended by over 500 stakeholders, including the devolved Administrations. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made a good point about LEPs and mayoral authorities—of course we will want to consult and collaborate with those organisations as well as the devolved Administrations as we take these proposals further. Those mentioned at the Dispatch Box were not an exclusive list of those whom we wish to engage, but the debate has focused very much on the question of devolution.

As for the establishment of principles, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Liddle, and others, there is not a huge amount of disagreement here. The EU set the terms and conditions for investment in the UK as well as other member states, with which the UK Government and the devolved Administrations alike had to comply. Devolved Administrations and other areas were then responsible for managing EU funds in those projects. The idea of setting out principles in a framework and then collaborating in local delivery is very much something we wish to take forward. We have set out some of those principles already in the heads of terms for the shared prosperity fund that we published at the spending review. We have said that a much more detailed investment framework will be published in the spring, following further discussions.

Regarding the focus of that investment, I would have thought the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would welcome our saying at the spending review that investment should be aligned with the Government’s clean growth and net zero objectives. Those are the kinds of principles we have already set out and that we want to see in the investment from these funds.

On the establishment of principles and the conduct of consultations, the Government and noble Lords are rather in agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the quantum and the distribution of funding. Again, I apologise and will have to disappoint him slightly. I said at the spending review that the quantum will ramp up to £1.5 billion a year, I think, to match that commitment to, at minimum spend, the previous levels. I also referred in the last debate to our setting out certain commitments in our manifesto that will guide us in future. But there is more work to be done on the detail—from taking the heads of terms to the investment framework—to get the kind of answers that the noble Lord is asking for.

I have mentioned some of the details of the shared prosperity fund, and I also talked about our approach to city deals. I gently disagree with certain noble Lords’ use of “pork-barrel politics” terminology. I point to examples of our trying to take a collaborative approach—a principles-based approach from the centre, while also working with those on the ground regarding their needs. That is very much the approach we plan to take with the shared prosperity fund.

I am afraid that I will have to take away the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about a possible replacement for Erasmus and how that might operate. Again, this is an example of the fact that the detail of this matters. The Government take this very seriously. However, we disagree on some points. This power will be used for the shared prosperity fund and may be used in other areas. We want it to be flexible enough for the UK Government to respond quickly and at scale to investment challenges and opportunities. It is not practical to set out a single plan for investment in legislation now, which is why, for the shared prosperity fund, we will set out plans and collaborate with the devolved Administrations as we will have developed that. In other areas in future—the noble Lord mentioned Erasmus, for example—we will take a similar approach.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, will feel able to withdraw his amendment although it did not sound as though he was minded to.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to ask a short question for elucidation.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

You wish to test the opinion of the House? The Question will be decided by a remote Division. I instruct the clerk to start the remote Division.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I believe the clerk will give us some advice on how to proceed in hybrid proceedings in these circumstances. I suggest we adjourn for five minutes until we get that advice on how to proceed.

Performing Arts: Job Support Scheme

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Baroness Penn

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of the arts and culture to our well-being, but I have to disagree with him that it is at the bottom of the Chancellor’s list. In fact, the VAT cut extension which the noble Lord has called for was delivered as part of the Winter Economy Plan, which was due to end in January but has been extended to March. The plan has been designed to see us through the next six months, which the Prime Minster has said these measures could be in place for, and we will continue to prioritise the arts and culture as an incredibly important part of our national fabric.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked.

Covid-19: Economic Costs

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Baroness Penn

Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn]

My noble friend the Minister in the Department for Transport will be able to give more detail about this subject in response to the Private Notice Question, but I can say that new data from the Spanish health ministry was published on Friday showing that new cases reported across the country on Thursday and Friday were up by 75% on those reported for the previous two days. This has been a fast-moving and changing situation in Spain to which the Government have reacted.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, my question is about specific localised job protection measures. Having read the report mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and taken note of its recommendations, and given the experience of managing the recent local lockdown in Leicester, what plans if any have Her Majesty’s Government for such specific localised job protection measures? If, as the report suggests, we move towards a more targeted approach, rather than the initial general approach, this will be critical.

[Baroness Penn]

I remind the noble Lord that many of the job protection schemes that we have set up remain in place, the biggest one being the job retention scheme, which will run until the end of October. We have also provided additional resources to, for example, Leicester, which has had to deal with a localised lockdown. As our test and trace data becomes even more detailed and accurate, we would like to target these measures even more in order to reduce any local economic impact.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Lord McNicol of West Kilbride and Baroness Penn

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Carlile, for tabling the amendment. I also thank them for the discussions that we have had on this matter since a similar amendment was tabled in Committee. I have listened very carefully to the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I stress at the outset just how seriously the Government take the protection of those who have taken out a bounce-back loan. I will set out what form those protections take, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked me to do.

We have integrated significant protections into the Bounce Back Loan Scheme. I point towards the obligations that the scheme imposes on lenders to act honourably. I set out many of those terms in Committee. Loans are capped at 25% of turnover and the interest rate for the scheme is capped at 2.5%. The Government will cover interest and repayments for the first year of the loan. That helps to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that businesses might not be able to afford to repay the loan now due to current circumstances but, with a bit of time to get back up and trading, will be able to meet those payments in future.

The lender may not levy any fees or interest beyond the fixed interest rate of 2.5% a year, including any fees on default. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on this point. Lenders are required to adhere to the scheme rules as set out in this agreement. They may use their standard terms and conditions for documenting the loans. This might be where the confusion has come from, but there is no ability to charge any fees or interest beyond that 2.5% a year.

We will get more into the detail of some other protections, but a number of noble Lords raised the question of the balance of fairness in these loans. These loans set out to be a very standardised product. Protections such as no lender levy fees whatever and a fixed interest rate of 2.5% a year are also factors that need to be taken into account when we look at the balance of fairness and include in that the government guarantee at 100%.

Further protections include the provision of clear information before and during the life of the loan, which was an issue a number of noble Lords raised. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, I say that lenders are obliged to make it clear in the terms of the loans that the protections under the Consumer Credit Act do not apply to these loans. That is also stated up front.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about the question raised at Second Reading on forbearance of these loans. That is provided for in the terms of the guarantee agreement. There must be forbearance on missed payments, allowing the customer a reasonable time to remedy defaults without consequence. There must also be signposting of appropriate assistance where businesses experience payment difficulties.

We come on to the retention of Financial Conduct Authority oversight for debt collection by lenders of loans that would be regulated credit agreements but are exempt by virtue of them being bounce-back loans, and the right for eligible borrowers under the scheme to access the Financial Ombudsman Service to resolve disputes. I will go into more detail on FCA and Financial Ombudsman Service oversight a bit later, because I know noble Lords will want it. A point was raised in our discussions outside the Chamber on the reservation that, despite the specific protections, the unfair loans provisions in the CCA provide a very broad and general protection so that, if some of these protections that we have specified turn out not to be enough or banks might find a further loophole, the broad provisions provide further protections.

I reassure the noble Baroness that there is also a general, overarching commitment in the guarantee agreement. The lenders have an overarching obligation that they must always act in good faith and not behave in a manner that could reasonably be expected to bring the scheme or the guarantor into disrepute, or in a way that contravenes any applicable law or regulation. This includes all actions in respect of servicing and enforcement of the loan. The lender’s performance of such obligations is subject to audit by the British Business Bank, and the obligations of the guarantee agreement are legal, valid, binding and enforceable obligations. Failure to comply with these terms in the guarantee would mean lenders risk not being able to make a claim under it, which would provide an exceptionally strong incentive to firms to conduct themselves properly. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that if such behaviour that contravened the terms of the guarantee agreement were brought to light, the Government would have no qualms about using their power to withdraw the guarantee.

The Financial Ombudsman Service, raised by a number of noble Lords, also has a more general obligation and duty in cases brought to it to make decisions on what it thinks is fair and reasonable in all circumstances of the case. The noble Baronesses will know that in 2019 the Government expanded eligibility to access the Financial Ombudsman Service so that small businesses with an annual turnover of less than £6.5 million and either an annual balance sheet total of less than £5 million or fewer than 50 employees can access the Financial Ombudsman Service. This means that an estimated 99.5% of SMEs can access the Financial Ombudsman Service. I make the point to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that for very small businesses that are inexperienced in taking out credit, a free-to-access ombudsman service—rather than a law suit—is often by far the preferred way to resolve a dispute.

As has been previously noted, the collection of debts under the bounce-back loan scheme remains a regulated activity for loans of less than £25,000 to sole traders, partnerships of fewer than four people and unincorporated associations. That means lenders under the scheme must comply with the FCA’s consumer credit conduct of business standards, rules and guidance on arrears, default and recovery in chapter 7 of the FCA’s Consumer Credit Sourcebook, as well as the FCA’s high-level principles, when collecting debts related to those agreements. As the noble Baronesses will know, this protection reflects the position for business lending more broadly and the fact that all business lending over £25,000 is not FCA-regulated.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles: it is not that we were restricting FCA regulation of debt collection in bounce-back loans to loans under £25,000. That is the cut-off point—the threshold—where we regulate that lending activity, and that has not been changed in this. What has happened is that when we removed other provisions in the Consumer Credit Act, which we did via secondary legislation, we reinserted or kept the FCA regulation of debt collection for debts under £25,000 but did not extend it, and nor would we. We think that is the right threshold for FCA regulation of activity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said.

To address the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, about limited companies, it is worth noting that the provisions in this clause would never have applied to limited companies. The protections in the Consumer Credit Act do not apply to limited companies and so, by disapplying these parts of the Consumer Credit Act, we are not changing their position in regulation at all.

A few further points were raised. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in Committee and again today more broadly about the Consumer Credit Act 1974, he is right to highlight that that legislation dates back nearly 50 years. Through subsequent amendments, it has become increasingly complex and challenging to navigate. That is reflected in the fact that, in addition to Clause 12 in this Bill, the Government used secondary legislation so that bounce-back loans would not be regulated credit agreements and are now exempt unregulated agreements.

We have made some progress in modernising the consumer credit regulation. In 2014, the FCA took over responsibility for regulating consumer credit. Part of the transfer of the provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was repealed and those provisions were replaced by FCA rules. However, there was more to do and, since then, the FCA has reviewed the remaining provisions and it published its final report into the matter in March 2019. The Treasury has been undertaking a programme of work to consider the FCA’s findings in detail. It is currently focused on our response to the Covid-19 crisis but, once the urgency of the crisis has subsided, the Government hope to set out in more detail the next steps that they will take on the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The second point that I would like to make is about the impact of this amendment, should it be agreed. Lenders have made over £30 billion-worth of loans under the scheme in anticipation of Sections 140 to 140C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 being disapplied. Borrowers have entered into those agreements in the knowledge that the usual protections will not apply. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord German, that over 1 million businesses have benefited from this measure, and that take-up is not insignificant.

Lenders have informed us that, should the amendment be agreed, it is likely that they would cease to offer any new lending under the scheme, thus depriving small businesses of the vital finance they need to weather this crisis. I understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords, but it is not possible to be in favour of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme but not in favour of this part of it—a part that has been crucial in getting the lending going.

My colleagues in the other place have been grateful for the constructive discussions that they have had with the Opposition during the development of the scheme and for the agreement that these measures, although extraordinary, were necessary to rapidly provide small businesses—the lifeblood of our economy—with the funding that they have needed in these extraordinary times. In developing the scheme, we have also worked closely with the FCA.

In response to those noble Lords who asked this question, there is an ongoing programme of work to look at the recoveries process for these loans. The Treasury has convened recoveries workshops with all accredited lenders, along with the FCA, the PRA and the British Business Bank, aimed at ensuring a consistent industry-wide approach to the collection and recovery of bounce-back loans. These discussions will follow the customer journey throughout the lifetime of the loan and ensure that lenders understand the type of support that they can provide to borrowers.

The legislative changes already made in secondary legislation and which we are now seeking to make in primary legislation are integral parts of the design and functioning of the scheme. They have been worked through carefully but also at pace, given the urgency with which small businesses have needed this support. The changes have been made alongside targeted protections built into the guarantee and, where possible, regulations. Without this scheme, lenders would not be able to provide the finance at the necessary pace and scale in response to the huge economic disruption caused by Covid-19.

I hope that I have given the noble Baroness reassurance that borrowers have robust protections under this scheme and that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have received no requests for speakers to come back after the Minister, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.