Lord Sikka

Cabinet Office does not hold the information requested, as individual departments are responsible for their own procurements.

Central Government contracts above £10,000 are published on Contracts Finder at https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Search.

Central Government departments have drawn on the expertise and resources of a number of public and private sector partners to support the response to Covid-19. Details of central government contracts above £10,000 are published on Contracts Finder at https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Search

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

The Registrar of Companies has no current powers to verify information properly delivered in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 or other enactments.

However, following extensive consultation over 2020 and 2021, the Government published on 28 February 2022 a detailed White Paper (copy attached) setting out far-reaching reforms to Companies House which will mean that:

• Anyone setting up, running, owning or controlling a company in the UK will need to verify their identity with Companies House;
• The Registrar will have new powers to challenge information that appears dubious, and will be empowered to inform security agencies of potential wrongdoing;
• Company agents from overseas will no longer be able to create companies in the UK on behalf of foreign criminals or secretive oligarchs.

It is the Government’s intention to bring forward appropriate legislation early in the next session of this Parliament.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

The Registrar of Companies has no current powers to verify information properly delivered in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 or other enactments.

However, following extensive consultation over 2020 and 2021, the Government published on 28 February 2022 a detailed White Paper (copy attached) setting out far-reaching reforms to Companies House which will mean that:

• Anyone setting up, running, owning or controlling a company in the UK will need to verify their identity with Companies House;
• The Registrar will have new powers to challenge information that appears dubious, and will be empowered to inform security agencies of potential wrongdoing;
• Company agents from overseas will no longer be able to create companies in the UK on behalf of foreign criminals or secretive oligarchs.

It is the Government’s intention to bring forward appropriate legislation early in the next session of this Parliament.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

The Registrar of Companies has no current powers to verify information properly delivered in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 or other enactments.

However, following extensive consultation over 2020 and 2021, the Government published on 28 February 2022 a detailed White Paper (copy attached) setting out far-reaching reforms to Companies House which will mean that:

• Anyone setting up, running, owning or controlling a company in the UK will need to verify their identity with Companies House;
• The Registrar will have new powers to challenge information that appears dubious, and will be empowered to inform security agencies of potential wrongdoing;
• Company agents from overseas will no longer be able to create companies in the UK on behalf of foreign criminals or secretive oligarchs.

It is the Government’s intention to bring forward appropriate legislation early in the next session of this Parliament.

Between 24 February and 3 March 2022, 28 new companies and one new limited liability partnership were incorporated reporting Russian nationals as registrable in accordance with PSC legislation. In the same period 9 further companies updated their details to report that a Russian national had become registrable under the same legislation. It should be noted that PSC information is provided by companies and is not verified by Companies House.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

The Registrar of Companies has no current powers to verify information properly delivered in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 or other enactments.

However, following extensive consultation over 2020 and 2021, the Government published on 28 February 2022 a detailed White Paper (copy attached) setting out far-reaching reforms to Companies House which will mean that:

• Anyone setting up, running, owning or controlling a company in the UK will need to verify their identity with Companies House;
• The Registrar will have new powers to challenge information that appears dubious, and will be empowered to inform security agencies of potential wrongdoing;
• Company agents from overseas will no longer be able to create companies in the UK on behalf of foreign criminals or secretive oligarchs.

It is the Government’s intention to bring forward appropriate legislation early in the next session of this Parliament.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

The Registrar of Companies has no current powers to verify information properly delivered in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 or other enactments.

However, following extensive consultation over 2020 and 2021, the Government published on 28 February 2022 a detailed White Paper (copy attached) setting out far-reaching reforms to Companies House which will mean that:

• Anyone setting up, running, owning or controlling a company in the UK will need to verify their identity with Companies House;
• The Registrar will have new powers to challenge information that appears dubious, and will be empowered to inform security agencies of potential wrongdoing;
• Company agents from overseas will no longer be able to create companies in the UK on behalf of foreign criminals or secretive oligarchs.

It is the Government’s intention to bring forward appropriate legislation early in the next session of this Parliament.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

The Registrar of Companies has no current powers to verify information properly delivered in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 or other enactments.

However, following extensive consultation over 2020 and 2021, the Government published on 28 February 2022 a detailed White Paper (copy attached) setting out far-reaching reforms to Companies House which will mean that:

• Anyone setting up, running, owning or controlling a company in the UK will need to verify their identity with Companies House;
• The Registrar will have new powers to challenge information that appears dubious, and will be empowered to inform security agencies of potential wrongdoing;
• Company agents from overseas will no longer be able to create companies in the UK on behalf of foreign criminals or secretive oligarchs.

It is the Government’s intention to bring forward appropriate legislation early in the next session of this Parliament.

Fuel poverty statistics are updated annually. The next update will be published on 24 February 2022. The report will include data for 2020 on the number of households living in fuel poverty in England and analysis of the composition of fuel poor households, as well as projections of the number of households in fuel poverty in 2021 and 2022. It is Ofgem’s role, as the independent regulator, to set a fair rate for the energy price cap. The price cap will ensure that over 22 million households pay a fair price for their gas and electricity.

Support for energy bills is available to eligible households through the Warm home Discount, the Winter Fuel Payment and the Cold Weather Payments. On 3 February, the Government announced a package of support worth £9.1 billion to help domestic energy customers with the cost of rising energy bills. This includes a £150 non-repayable Council Tax rebate in April 2022 to all households in Council Tax Bands A-D, £144 million of discretionary funding for local authorities to support those not eligible for the Council Tax rebate and a £200 discount on energy bills this Autumn for domestic electricity customers’ bills, to be paid back automatically over the next five years.

The Competition and Markets Authority’s decisions in respect of liothyronine and hydrocortisone tablets are subject to appeals to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. It would not be appropriate for the Government to comment on the matter while these legal proceedings are ongoing.

The Chair and members of the UK Endorsement Board (UKEB) are appointed, following a fair and open recruitment process, in line with the Cabinet Office’s Governance Code for Public Appointments. Recruitment also follows criteria set by the Secretary of State in the Terms of Reference covering diversity of knowledge and skills. Due diligence checks are also carried out on all proposed Board members to ensure the appropriateness of their appointment. The UKEB members are appointed in their individual capacity, are required to act independently, and in the UK long-term public good. This entails not showing preference to special interests and/or any employing entity and professional, sectoral or organisational affiliations. UKEB Board members are required to complete a Register of Interests, available on the UKEB website.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is responsible for the public oversight of statutory auditors, including investigation and sanctioning in relation to the statutory audits of Public Interest Entities and certain other entities. The FRC also provides a voluntary independent investigation and discipline scheme for matters relating to the accountancy or actuarial professions which raise important issues affecting the public interest.

Prior to the Covid pandemic BEIS had 2 suitably qualified officials supported by a Civil Service fast streamer within the central Counter Fraud function however to consider this the total response to Counter Fraud is reductive.

As the Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic developed, BEIS expenditure increased from a pre-COVID-19 level of less than £20 billion per year to over £100 billion. With the extraordinary speed of the Bounce Back Loan Scheme launch – necessary to ensure business across the UK received the financial support they so urgently needed as quickly as possible - BEIS deployed a Senior Civil Servant, with extensive experience in counter fraud, to lead the counter fraud effort and a number of BEIS employees were redeployed into counter fraud roles to support the core team leading on the COVID-19 loan schemes.

It is important to note that this represents only the core BEIS Counter Fraud function and that there is additional resource deployed across the BEIS affiliated organisations dealing with counter fraud. BEIS Counter Fraud function operates as part of the wider Government Counter Fraud function and with partners across the civil service and law enforcement.

In early 2021 investment was secured to expand the Counter Fraud capability including an additional 10 counter fraud posts, one being a permanent Senior Civil Service post. Recruitment for these posts started in mid-2021 and as at January 2022 the core BEIS counter fraud workforce has increased to nine.

Moving forward, this increase in BEIS counter fraud resource and capability will deliver a counter fraud centre of expertise, supporting and working with the many counter fraud experts across the Arm’s Length Bodies and Partner Organisations affiliated to BEIS. It will develop a robust Lessons process to build prevention strategies for future loans and grant schemes that our Arm’s Length Bodies and Partner Organisations may have deliver and provide the focal point for data collection and reporting between the affiliated groups and the Cabinet Office.

The Bank continues to work with lenders in order to better understand and validate what may be driving these differences, and to share best practice, data and insight.

The Bank continues to publish the names of companies who took out loans under the scheme where required in line with reporting transparency requirements. We do not intend to name specific lenders at this time due to the commercially sensitive nature of this information.

We do not intend to name specific lenders at this time due to the commercially sensitive nature of this information.

We announced plans to reform Companies House in September 2020. In 2021, we consulted on more detailed aspects of the reforms, and we will respond soon.

The Government’s plans will deliver significant improvements to the integrity of the UK’s register of companies and assist greatly in the fight against economic crime. These reforms will include the identity verification of directors, People with Significant Control and those filing on behalf of a company, and new powers for the registrar to query and check information.

It will also include the requirement that the accounts filed with the Registrar must be the most detailed set of accounts that has been prepared for the company’s members.

We will bring forward legislation on these reforms when Parliamentary time allows.

We announced plans to reform Companies House in September 2020. In 2021, we consulted on more detailed aspects of the reforms, and we will respond soon.

The Government’s plans will deliver significant improvements to the integrity of the UK’s register of companies and assist greatly in the fight against economic crime. These reforms will include the identity verification of directors, People with Significant Control and those filing on behalf of a company, and new powers for the registrar to query and check information.

It will also include the requirement that the accounts filed with the Registrar must be the most detailed set of accounts that has been prepared for the company’s members.

We will bring forward legislation on these reforms when Parliamentary time allows.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

We announced plans to reform Companies House in September 2020, and in 2021 we consulted on more detailed aspects of the reforms, and we will respond soon. The Government’s plans will deliver significant improvements to the integrity of the UK’s register of companies and assist greatly in the fight against economic crime.

When parliamentary time allows, the Government intends to bring forward legislation to give the Registrar greater powers to check information before it is registered and to verify the identity of directors, People with Significant Control and those filing on behalf of a company.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

We announced plans to reform Companies House in September 2020, and in 2021 we consulted on more detailed aspects of the reforms, and we will respond soon. The Government’s plans will deliver significant improvements to the integrity of the UK’s register of companies and assist greatly in the fight against economic crime.

When parliamentary time allows, the Government intends to bring forward legislation to give the Registrar greater powers to check information before it is registered and to verify the identity of directors, People with Significant Control and those filing on behalf of a company.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

We announced plans to reform Companies House in September 2020, and in 2021 we consulted on more detailed aspects of the reforms, and we will respond soon. The Government’s plans will deliver significant improvements to the integrity of the UK’s register of companies and assist greatly in the fight against economic crime.

When parliamentary time allows, the Government intends to bring forward legislation to give the Registrar greater powers to check information before it is registered and to verify the identity of directors, People with Significant Control and those filing on behalf of a company.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

We announced plans to reform Companies House in September 2020, and in 2021 we consulted on more detailed aspects of the reforms, and we will respond soon. The Government’s plans will deliver significant improvements to the integrity of the UK’s register of companies and assist greatly in the fight against economic crime.

When parliamentary time allows, the Government intends to bring forward legislation to give the Registrar greater powers to check information before it is registered and to verify the identity of directors, People with Significant Control and those filing on behalf of a company.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

We announced plans to reform Companies House in September 2020, and in 2021 we consulted on more detailed aspects of the reforms, and we will respond soon. The Government’s plans will deliver significant improvements to the integrity of the UK’s register of companies and assist greatly in the fight against economic crime.

When parliamentary time allows, the Government intends to bring forward legislation to give the Registrar greater powers to check information before it is registered and to verify the identity of directors, People with Significant Control and those filing on behalf of a company.

We are unable to comment on individual cases.

We announced plans to reform Companies House in September 2020, and in 2021 we consulted on more detailed aspects of the reforms, and we will respond soon. The Government’s plans will deliver significant improvements to the integrity of the UK’s register of companies and assist greatly in the fight against economic crime.

When parliamentary time allows, the Government intends to bring forward legislation to give the Registrar greater powers to check information before it is registered and to verify the identity of directors, People with Significant Control and those filing on behalf of a company.

In accordance with its normal investigation targeting process, the facts of this case, including the content of the Financial Reporting Counsel’s Disciplinary Tribunal Report, published in October 2021, is being reviewed by the Insolvency Service to decide if an investigation is required.

Ofgem’s review of the financial regulatory framework for energy suppliers includes the consideration for capital adequacy requirements; Ofgem has committed to consult on this matter this coming Spring.

The Crown Estate publishes an annual Offshore Wind Operational Report which contains both a list of UK offshore windfarms and details of their ownership.

Where a document (whether filed electronically or on paper) appears to be “properly delivered”, the registrar is obliged to register it. A document is properly delivered when it contains the information required by law; is completed in the proper form; has the correct fee attached (where appropriate) and is authenticated.

The Registrar of Companies does not have the legal power to verify or validate information filed with her. If a complaint is received as to the content of the filing, Companies House may contact the entity to make enquiries. No complaint has been received in this case.

Where a document (whether filed electronically or on paper) appears to be “properly delivered”, the registrar is obliged to register it. A document is properly delivered when it contains the information required by law; is completed in the proper form; has the correct fee attached (where appropriate) and is authenticated.

The Registrar of Companies does not have the legal power to verify or validate information filed with her. If a complaint is received as to the content of the filing, Companies House may contact the entity to make enquiries. No complaint has been received in this case.

Where a document (whether filed electronically or on paper) appears to be “properly delivered”, the registrar is obliged to register it. A document is properly delivered when it contains the information required by law; is completed in the proper form; has the correct fee attached (where appropriate) and is authenticated.

The Registrar of Companies does not have the legal power to verify or validate information filed with her. If a complaint is received as to the content of the filing, Companies House may contact the entity to make enquiries. No complaint has been received in this case.

Estimates can be found in the Department’s latest Annual Report and Accounts (copy attached). The Department has set out its estimates of losses expected through the three COVID-19 loan schemes and associated guarantees in note 19 to the accounts. While it is too early to give a definitive view of what the final level of irrecoverable debt will be, early repayment data is encouraging compared against the worst-case scenarios described in some published estimates.

The Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme is a delegated scheme and lending decisions were made by the accredited lenders.

The Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS) is a delegated scheme and lending decisions were made by the accredited lenders.

The Insolvency Service does not generally investigate complaints against Insolvency Practitioners, who are individuals licensed and regulated by one of four authorising bodies, known as the Recognised Professional Bodies (RPBs). Instead, the Insolvency Service operates a single point of contact, the Complaints Gateway, which provides an independent and consistent assessment of complaints about insolvency practitioners. On receipt of a complaint the Gateway will assess it against objective criteria and, if it is within scope, pass it to the relevant RPB for consideration.

Statistical information, including on the number of complaints received and referred to the RPBs, is published each year as part of The Insolvency Service’s ‘Annual Review of Insolvency Practitioner Regulation’ which is available on GOV.UK.

The Government believes competition is the best driver of value and innovation in the energy market, giving households and businesses the best deals.

Together with Ofgem, the Government is considering what reforms are needed to improve competition and resilience in the energy retail market. In considering these reforms, the Government will take account of the lessons learned from the current market.

The Government is also working with the energy industry to put it on a more stable footing in the longer-term. This includes continuing to build a robust domestic renewable energy sector so that Government is less exposed to global volatility in natural gas supply and demand.

The FRC undertook the investigation into the audit of Interserve under its Audit Enforcement Procedure (AEP), the regime applicable to statutory audit investigations since 2016. All fines imposed under the AEP are paid into HM Treasury’s consolidated fund in line with the general principles applying to the treatment of fines or other penalties imposed by public bodies in central government.

In this case, the fine imposed on Grant Thornton LLP amounted to £1.3 million. This was adjusted for mitigating factors and admissions / early disposal, in line with the FRC’s published Sanctions Policy for AEP cases, to £718,250. The fine imposed on Simon Lowe, the audit engagement partner, was £70,000. This was adjusted for mitigating factors and admissions / early disposal to £38,675.

The £467,780 costs recovered have been paid to the Institute for Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), as the Recognised Supervisory Body (RSB) who paid for the investigation. (In accordance with paragraph 20ZA, Schedule 10 of the Companies Act 2006, the RSB, which has approved the persons as eligible for appointment as statutory auditors must pay the costs of the investigation).

There is no provision under the AEP for any proportion of fines or successfully reclaimed costs to be paid to any negatively affected stakeholders.

This Government takes the enforcement of the minimum wage seriously. That’s why we have doubled HMRC’s budget for enforcing the minimum wage since 2015.

In April 2016 we doubled the minimum wage penalty paid by employers; from 100% to 200% of the arrears owed to the worker, up to a maximum of £20,000 per worker. Any employer found to have underpaid their workers is subject to this substantial penalty and also to be publicly named and shamed. This is a significant deterrent against any employer who may be tempted to underpay their workers.

Our priority has always been to ensure that workers receive the money they are owed as quickly as possible. It is for this reason, in the vast majority of cases, HMRC pursue civil enforcement, and why since 2015 the Government has been able to order employers to repay £100 million to 1 million workers.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) publishes all financial sanctions imposed against audit firms and individuals in an Outcomes document on its website. This document is maintained and updated throughout the year.

In addition, on a yearly basis, the FRC publishes its Annual Enforcement Review, which contains a list of all sanctions imposed in the year. The Review for 2021 is available on the FRC website.

The Insolvency Service is considering the facts of the case and the Financial Reporting Council’s Disciplinary Tribunal report published in October this year.

The Insolvency Service, acting for the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has applied to the High Court for director disqualification orders against eight directors and former directors of Carillion. The proceedings are ongoing.

The four recognised professional bodies (RPBs) responsible for the regulation of Insolvency Practitioners do not engage ombudsmen in their oversight systems. However, each RPB has independent committees that oversee regulatory decisions. In order to maintain independence, the committees require an equal or majority lay membership. Further, each of the RPB’s complaints processes includes potential referral of a complaint to an independent reviewer of complaints. The reviewers of complaints are lawyers who work independently and consider an RPB’s decision where it has determined there is no case to answer.

The FRC undertook the investigation into Silentnight under its accountancy scheme. For statutory audit investigations since 2016 this scheme has not applied and fines are paid into HM Treasury’s consolidated fund. However, the Silentnight investigation was into KPMG’s accounting services and was launched in 2015 so fines and any costs recovered are paid to the relevant chartered accountancy body. In this case they were paid to the Institute for Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

The most recent joint liquidators’ report for the period ending 1 December 2020, filed at Companies House in relation to SHB Realisations Limited (formerly BHS Limited), shows that fees were drawn in the sum of £4,858,117.

Anthony Wright and Geoffrey Rowley of FRP Advisory LLP are the joint liquidators. We have not yet been informed as to when they expect to conclude the liquidation.

The Government and the British Business Bank (Bank) are closely monitoring the situation with respect to Greensill Capital.

Lenders offering finance via the Covid-19 loan schemes are expected to adhere to the terms of the guarantee agreement, and the Bank will take appropriate action in the event of non-compliance.

The Government wants to be fully assured that the right lessons are learned for the future, that concrete changes have taken place at Post Office Limited and that this situation will never be repeated. That is why we launched the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry. We will consider the outcomes of the Inquiry in due course and we will not speculate on individual responsibility before the Inquiry has reported.

While Post Office Limited is publicly owned, it operates as an independent, commercial business. Therefore, details regarding actions against Fujitsu is an operational matter for Post Office Limited.

The Government does not hold or collect information on survival rates of businesses subject to a pre-pack administration.

The Companies Act 2006 does not include specific requirements for finance secured through reverse factoring. However, section 393 places a requirement on directors that the accounts must provide a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss of a company or group. This places a responsibility to provide such information as is necessary to ensure that requirement is met, including where reverse factoring is used in supply chain arrangements.

The correct accounting treatment for reverse factoring is dependent on the terms and conditions of the factoring arrangement in place. The International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Interpretations Committee and the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) have both issued guidance addressing the accounting standards requirements for reverse factoring, including guidance on additional disclosures. Copies of the guidance are attached below. The International Accounting Standards Board is also considering whether to add a project on reverse factoring to its agenda, as part of their responsibility for issuing International Financial Reporting Standards.

Compliance is primarily a matter for the directors, and there are rights of recourse to the courts in response to unlawful distributions. Where a company becomes insolvent after paying dividends the courts have wide powers to apply a variety of sanctions and remedies. Data on illegal dividends is not collected.

A number of bodies, however, have an interest in dividend payments from their particular regulatory perspectives. They include the Insolvency Service and insolvency practitioners who will investigate dividend payments and seek to recover them if they are found to be illegal. HM Revenue and Customs has an interest in the proper payment of dividends to the extent that there may be tax consequences leading to a loss to the Exchequer. The Prudential Regulation Authority has rules and powers under financial services legislation regarding dividends and other distributions for the purpose of banks and building societies’ capital conservation. Data on this aspect of the regulators’ work is not collected.

Proposals in the Government’s recently published consultation document on Restoring Trust in Audit and Corporate Governance would improve dividend transparency and provide stronger reassurance that dividends are being paid in line with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006. These include proposals to require companies to disclose their known distributable reserves in their financial statements, and to require directors to confirm that dividends are within known distributable reserves and that it is their reasonable expectation that payment of the dividend will not threaten the solvency of the company over the next two years.

The Government is committed to ensuring employers correctly pay the National Minimum Wage (NMW). We have more than doubled the budget for the NMW enforcement and compliance, rising to £27.5 million for 20/21, up from £13.2 million in 2015/16. In 2019/20, HM Revenue & Customs identified £20.8 million in arrears for over 263,000 workers and issued just under 1,000 penalties totalling £18.5 million to non-compliant employers.

The ONS’ Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE) provides our primary estimate of the proportion of workers who are paid below the statutory minimum wage. The Low Pay Commission (LPC) published estimates in their 2020 report, which found that 347,000 workers (or 1.4% of all jobs) were underpaid the relevant minimum wage in April 2020. This excludes individuals who were furloughed, as they would not have been working at that time. The LPC figure follows our 2019 estimate, where underpayment was estimated to be approximately 408,000, equivalent to 1.4% of all jobs.

We will publish further information on minimum wage underpayment in due course, in our annual enforcement report.

The remuneration paid to PriceWaterhouseCoopers as special managers assisting the Official Receiver in the Carillion liquidations is £59,593,062 (net of VAT) for the period from 15 January 2018 to 21 January 2021.

Whilst some of this information is already collected, such as the causes of personal insolvency and some corporate insolvencies that are dealt with by the Official Receiver, these only represent a small fraction of the total number of corporate and personal insolvency cases and would not therefore be representative.

This information is not collated and held centrally. Information on individual corporate insolvencies at Companies House contains reports filed by the appointed insolvency office holder which will detail the amounts owed to different types of creditors, including unsecured creditors, and any payments made to those creditors from the realisation of assets during the course of the insolvency process.

The Insolvency Service’s enquiries into Carillion plc are ongoing. Once complete, a decision will be made on whether it is in the public interest to commence disqualification proceedings against any of the directors of the company.

Several bodies have powers in certain circumstances to investigate and take action if illegal dividends have been paid, including the Insolvency Service, HM Revenue and Customs and some sector regulators.

These figures are made up of private limited, public limited and unlimited companies. Companies House does not register details of sole traders etc and cannot provide information about them.

The number of private limited, public limited and unlimited company liquidations which remain incomplete after (1) 5 years (2) 10 years, and 3 (15) years is as follows:

The three fines in the enforcement case relating to Autonomy Corporation plc were imposed under the Financial Reporting Council’s (FRC’s) Accountancy Scheme. Since 2016, a new Audit Enforcement Procedure has been implemented under the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations 2016 for investigations of possible breaches of relevant requirements by statutory auditors under those Regulations.

The investigation into Autonomy Corporation plc started before those regulations came into force. Under the Accountancy Scheme the fines must be passed to the participating body which is required to fund the legal costs of the case. Additionally, any costs awarded by the tribunal in recognition of the costs funded by the participating body must also be paid to that body. In this case the participating body was the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

Fines imposed by the FRC under the Audit Enforcement Procedure must be paid to the Secretary of State and the Exchequer. Any costs awarded to the FRC in recognition of the costs funded by one of the recognised audit supervisory bodies must continue to be paid to that body.

The median weekly amount of State Pension paid, by gender, at the end of May 2021 is shown in the below table. These show payments under the two systems: - (i) the basic State Pension (bSP) plus other components such additional State Pension (SERPS and State Second Pension) and Graduated Retirement Benefit, which operated for people who reached State Pension age before 6 April 2016; and (ii) the new State Pension (nSP) system for people reaching State Pension age from that date onwards.

Please note that this does not include any payments of Pension Credit which people may be receiving in addition to their contributory State Pension.

Median weekly amount of State Pension (£) by gender, Quarter ending May 2021

Source: DWP, Data and Analytics, Digital Group - Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study, and other administrative data.

Notes:

1. Coverage: All cases in payment in Great Britain, plus claimants residing abroad. This excludes cases administered in Northern Ireland.
2. This data table provides temporary estimates for May 2021. The data will be withdrawn and replaced with new data on Stat-Xplore once the Get Your State Pension (GYSP) system data have been reliably developed and tested.
3. Table 11 of the latest published statistics provides the mean weekly amount of State Pension paid, by gender, at the end of May 2021.

1. Individuals at or above State Pension age may be entitled to apply for financial support from amongst the following DWP benefits, depending upon their personal circumstances:

2. We have data available for the number of families who are entitled to claim such benefits for Pension Credit and Housing Benefit. We do not hold this information for the other benefits in which pensioners may be entitled. These are from the Income-related benefits: estimates of take up: financial year 2018 to 2019.

There are already around 1.4 million people claiming around £5 billion in Pension Credit. We want to make sure that all eligible pensioners claim the Pension Credit to which they are rightly entitled. The DWP conducted a media day in June with support from Age UK and the BBC and others, using national and local media to help reach older people reticent about claiming Pension Credit. There have also been press articles since then to encourage take-up.

The working group which DWP has established includes a diverse range of organisations including pensioner charities as well as the BBC, British Telecom, Virgin Money and the Local Government Association. The group met most recently on 19 October and we hope that it will identify new practical initiatives to help address Pension Credit take up.

3. The number of individuals claiming the following benefits can be found on Table 2c of the Benefit Expenditure and Caseload tables 2021 on Gov.uk.

The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is a scheme, set up by the Labour government and continued by all successive governments, that pays compensation to members of eligible Defined Benefit pension schemes, whose sponsoring employer has become insolvent and where there are insufficient funds in the scheme to secure benefits at or above the level of PPF compensation. It was never intended to replicate in full the pension rights of schemes that, as a result of their employer’s insolvency, do not have sufficient assets to secure the pension benefits initially promised to their members. The usage of the PPF, when the Bernard Matthews Pension Fund transferred to the PPF did not result in any capping of members benefits.

There are no plans to introduce legislation on this issue.

This data is not readily available and so has been collated manually by the Pension Protection Fund for the last three years. From January 2020 to October 2020, the defined benefit pension schemes of 13 companies have undergone a pre-pack administration through the Pension Protection Fund. The aggregate value of the Section 75 debts of these pension schemes amounts to £196 million. Section 75 debt corresponds to the amount needed to secure a buyout for scheme members to receive their full benefits and provides a picture of the liability taken on by the Pension Protection Fund.

The Government does not intend to introduce legislation to enable claw back of remuneration from directors of entities found guilty of money laundering. This is because the UK financial services regulators – the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) – jointly set requirements for firms, including National Westminster Bank Plc, regarding the claw back of promised, or paid, remuneration.

Under these requirements, where misconduct or material poor performance occurs - including for anti-money laundering controls failings - firms would need to consider whether promised or paid remuneration can be justified, or should be returned (“clawed back”) for senior and materially risk-taking staff. The regulators have supervisory and enforcement tools to deploy in cases where they are not satisfied that a firm has complied with their rules.

The FCA’s successful prosecution of NatWest Plc in 2021 represents the first criminal prosecution brought by the FCA against a bank under the Money Laundering Regulations, and demonstrates the FCA’s commitment to using the full range of powers available to tackle anti-money laundering failings.

Monetary policy is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and this includes decisions on quantitative easing.

As set out in the letter exchange between the Chancellor and Governor on 3 February 2022, the Government indemnifies the Bank of England’s Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle that delivers quantitative easing. As part of this, there are oversight arrangements in place, including regular risk oversight meetings between Treasury and Bank senior officials which monitor the scheme’s implementation and risks to the Exchequer.

The Governor set out in his letter exchange with the Chancellor that, were asset sales judged to be appropriate, the Bank would liaise with the DMO in order to minimise interference with the DMO's own issuance programme, and would consider the views of market participants as to how best to minimise disruption in private asset markets.

Promotion or operation of mass marketed tax avoidance schemes is not in and of itself a criminal offence. However, there are a range of offences which might be committed by those who promote tax avoidance schemes or advise on their use.

On that basis, one individual involved in the promotion of Disguised Remuneration (DR) schemes has been prosecuted. They received a sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended for two years, and 300 hours of “unpaid work”.

A number of individuals are currently under criminal investigation by HMRC for offences linked to DR Schemes.

In addition, since 1 April 2016, more than 20 individuals have been convicted for offences relating to arrangements which have been promoted and marketed as tax avoidance. These have resulted in over 100 years of custodial sentences. The majority of these convictions relate to promoters.

The Government and HMRC are committed to tackling promoters and operators of tax avoidance schemes. This includes challenging the entities and individuals who promote DR loan schemes.

HMRC has a range of criminal and civil powers available to it to tackle those who try to cheat the tax system and will continue to use its anti-avoidance regimes to challenge the entities and individuals who facilitate avoidance schemes. These regimes include Promoters of Tax Avoidance Schemes, Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes, and the Enablers regimes, which impose significant penalties on promoters if they refuse to comply with various conditions.

There are also a range of possible criminal offences, such as cheating the public revenue, fraudulent evasion of Income Tax or VAT, or the general offence of fraud. Where the behaviour of avoidance promoters strays into these offences, they will be considered for criminal investigation.

Since April 2016, more than 20 individuals have been convicted for offences relating to arrangements promoted and marketed as tax avoidance schemes. The courts ordered over 100 years of custodial sentences. The majority of these individuals were promoters.

In its February Monetary Policy Report (MPR), the Bank of England set out its view of the likely impact of the cap increase, using information available just prior to Ofgem’s cap announcement, and prior to the announcement of the Government support packages. The Bank’s February 2022 MPR can be found on the Bank of England website.

The Office for Budget Responsibility will update its view of the outlook for CPI and RPI inflation in its spring 2022 forecast on 23 March.

The Government recognises that many households will need support to help deal with the rising cost of energy prices. Global supply chain disruptions and higher energy prices both represent challenges that are driving higher inflation. These are global problems which we are working with our international partners on, and we are supporting households with the cost of living, providing support worth around £12bn this financial year and next alongside an announced £9.1bn package to help households with rising energy bills in 2022-23.

The Government introduced unprecedented COVID support, helping millions of people across the UK. The schemes were designed to protect against Error and Fraud (E&F) by only making grants to individuals and businesses matched to information already on HMRC systems wherever possible, preventing ineligible claims, blocking suspicious claims up front, and investing in post-scheme compliance.

The latest E&F estimates and expenditure across the COVID-19 support schemes are included in HMRC’s 2021 Annual Report and Accounts, released on 4 November 2021, which can be found on the gov.uk website.

HMRC has published a technical document alongside the Annual Report and Accounts 2020 to 2021 detailing the methodology for measuring E&F in the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) phases 1 to 3, and the Eat Out to Help Out scheme (EOHO). This can be found on the gov.uk website.

HMRC aim to produce updated E&F estimates for CJRS and SEISS by Summer 2022.

HMRC are taking tough action to tackle fraudulent behaviour. Anyone who keeps money despite knowing they were not entitled to it, faces repaying up to double the amount, plus interest, and potentially criminal prosecution in serious cases.

HMRC established the Taxpayer Protection Taskforce and is estimated to recover approximately £800 million to £1 billion in the two years to 2022-23, on top of around £500 million recovered in the year 2020-21. HMRC will continue to address fraud and error in the schemes beyond the duration of the taskforce.

The UK’s independent financial services regulator, the FCA, investigated misconduct in the foreign exchange markets and fined six firms (Citibank, HSBC, JP Morgan, RBS, UBS, and Barclays) a total of £1.4 billion in 2014 and 2015 for failures of systems to control trading practices.

Alongside this, the European Commission opened a competition investigation in 2013, into the same issue, including covering any harm within the UK. In accordance with the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement, the EU has continued to be responsible for the case, because it was initiated before the end of the transition period. The EU shall reimburse the UK for its share of the amount of the fine once the fine has become definitive.

The Government expects all companies to obey the law and relevant regulations. Anyone with evidence of such forgery taking place should report it to their bank in the first instance. If their concerns remain, or they do not have a direct relationship with the lender, they should report it to the relevant authorities.

Although the Treasury sets the legal framework for the regulation of financial services it does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own and is not able to intervene in individual cases. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) requires all authorised firms to have systems and controls in place to mitigate the risk that they be used to commit financial crime. Whilst the police have primary responsibility for investigating fraud the FCA also has powers to take a variety of enforcement action against firms that carry out fraudulent activity.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) is continuing to assess the material submitted by the Bank Signature Forgery Campaign and information obtained following preliminary enquiries to clarify matters with certain members of the public who had raised the issue. The NCA is making a thorough assessment to determine whether there are grounds for a criminal or regulatory investigation.

The assessment and approval of the proposed sale and demutualisation of LV= (previously Liverpool Victoria) is an ongoing and independent process, overseen and scrutinised by the financial services regulators, and subject to approval by the Courts. It would be inappropriate for the Government to intervene in this independent process.

The regulators’ supervision of the sale includes an assessment of the fairness of the transaction, the impact on policyholders and competition in the interests of consumers, and the quality of communications with members of LV=.

The Court processes involve a number of safeguards which are designed to ensure that policyholders are kept informed and their interests protected.

Increasing the current rates of dividend tax to the current headline rates of income tax could theoretically raise around £8 billion a year, based on the 2021-22 tax rates. In practice, significantly less would be raised due to behavioural responses to any increases.

The Government has committed to increase rates of dividend tax by 1.25 percentage points, which is expected to raise £900 million a year by the end of the scorecard, accounting for behavioural responses. The higher rates of dividend tax from 2022-23 would therefore reduce the additional revenue that would be raised from increasing dividend rates to the rates of income tax.

The Government will continue to keep the tax system under constant review to ensure it is simple and efficient.

Last year, the Chancellor commissioned the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) to carry out a review of Capital Gains Tax (CGT). Their first report contains revenue estimates of the static impact of aligning CGT rates with those of Income Tax and can be found on the gov.uk website.

It was estimated that aligning CGT with Income Tax rates could have theoretically raised £14 billion in 2018-19 but, in practice, significantly less would be raised due to behavioural responses. The Government will respond to the OTS report in due course.

The Government will continue to keep the tax system under constant review to ensure it is simple and efficient.

Monetary policy is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and this includes decisions on quantitative easing. The Government does not comment on the conduct or effectiveness of monetary policy.

As set out in the letter exchange between the Chancellor and Governor on 5 November 2020, the Government indemnifies the Bank of England’s Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle that delivers quantitative easing. As part of this, there are oversight arrangements in place, including regular risk oversight meetings between Treasury and Bank senior officials which monitor the scheme’s implementation and risks to the Exchequer.

The Office of Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook, published on 27 October 2021, sets out the fiscal impacts of the Asset Purchase Facility including the effects of a potential unwind of quantitative easing over the forecast period.

Estimates of various policy changes can be approximated using the ‘Direct effects of illustrative tax changes’ publication which can be found on gov.uk.

This includes the costs of increasing National Insurance contributions (NIC) thresholds for the employee entry threshold by £2 per week and lower profit limits by £104 per year.

This can be used to scale the proportionate costs using the projected NIC threshold in 2022-23, which at the time of publication was £9,724, and increasing it by £2,846 to £12,570 in that year.

Published estimates are based on the 2017-18 Survey of Personal Incomes, which are projected using economic assumptions consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s March 2021 economic and fiscal outlook.

Since the financial crisis, we have implemented sweeping reforms to financial regulation. Through the Financial Services Act 2012, we dismantled the failed tripartite system, and replaced it with a set of regulators with clear objectives and responsibilities, with the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) responsible for the prudential supervision of the UK banking sector, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for ensuring proper conduct in line with UK financial regulations.

The impact of a specific business failure on authorised and regulated entities in the UK is a matter for our independent financial authorities, the PRA and the FCA. Although HM Treasury does not comment on supervisory matters, we continuously monitor risks across the financial sector and respond where appropriate in coordination with the independent financial authorities – the FCA, PRA and Bank of England – as well as relevant government departments.

Since the financial crisis, we have implemented sweeping reforms to financial regulation. Through the Financial Services Act 2012, we dismantled the failed tripartite system, and replaced it with a set of regulators with clear objectives and responsibilities, with the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) responsible for the prudential supervision of the UK banking sector, and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) for ensuring proper conduct in line with UK financial regulations.

The impact of a specific business failure on authorised and regulated entities in the UK is a matter for our independent financial authorities, the PRA and the FCA. Although HM Treasury does not comment on supervisory matters, we continuously monitor risks across the financial sector and respond where appropriate in coordination with the independent financial authorities – the FCA, PRA and Bank of England – as well as relevant government departments.

As you may be aware, Kufflink Ltd is not a regulated deposit taking firm, i.e. a bank, and hence are not regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority. Peer to peer firms are instead regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which in this instance extends to rules regarding capital requirements.

The FCA is an independent non-governmental body responsible for regulating and supervising the financial services industry. Although the Treasury sets the legal framework for the regulation of financial services, it has strictly limited powers in relation to the FCA. In particular, the Treasury has no general power of direction over the FCA and therefore it is not appropriate to request information regarding capital adequacy tests of individual firms.

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. The Minister will write directly to the Member with a response shortly.

It has not proved possible to respond to this question in the time available before Prorogation. The Minister will write directly to the Member with a response shortly.

Greensill Capital (UK) Limited was not authorised by the FCA. It was a registered entity under the Money Laundering Regulations, which means that the FCA supervised it but only for compliance with Anti-Money Laundering rules, not for wider conduct issues. Greensill Capital Securities Ltd was an Appointed Representative of an FCA-regulated firm, under whose supervision it could conduct some regulated activities. However, it was not itself supervised or authorised by the FCA. Greensill Capital Securities Ltd is no longer an Appointed Representative.

At no time has the Bank of England authorised or supervised Greensill Capital (UK) Limited or any member of their group.

Given Greensill Capital was not authorised by the Bank of England or the FCA no capital adequacy or stress tests were required or carried out.

The administration of the tax system is a matter for HM Revenue and Customs.  It would not be appropriate for Treasury ministers to become involved in the administration of the tax system in specific cases.

Senior civil servants and ministers routinely meet and correspond with a range of private sector stakeholders. Transparency releases are published on a quarterly basis, and are currently publicly available for Senior Official and Ministerial meetings up to and including September 2020, which is in line with normal reporting timelines on disclosures.

As you are aware, the FCA is an independent non-governmental body responsible for regulating and supervising the financial services industry. Although the Treasury sets the legal framework for the regulation of financial services, it has strictly limited powers in relation to the FCA. In particular, the Treasury has no general power of direction over the FCA and cannot intervene in individual cases.

Given the matters raised are the responsibility of the FCA, in view of its independence, it is not for the Government to provide direction.

However, as you may be aware, in the case of HBOS, Dame Linda Dobbs has been appointed as an independent legal expert to consider whether issues in the HBOS Reading Fraud were investigated and appropriately reported to authorities at the time by Lloyds Banking Group. At present the Dobbs review is ongoing and once completed, its findings will be shared with the FCA.

On Royal Bank of Scotland and GRG, the FCA has concluded their final investigation, which reaffirms the outcome of its enforcement investigation, which was announced in July 2018.

Finally, there are currently no plans for the Government to establish an independent review of the conduct of the Financial Conduct Authority in relation to the RBS and Lloyds Banking Group.

As you are aware, the FCA is an independent non-governmental body responsible for regulating and supervising the financial services industry. Although the Treasury sets the legal framework for the regulation of financial services, it has strictly limited powers in relation to the FCA. In particular, the Treasury has no general power of direction over the FCA and cannot intervene in individual cases.

Given the matters raised are the responsibility of the FCA, in view of its independence, it is not for the Government to provide direction.

However, as you may be aware, in the case of HBOS, Dame Linda Dobbs has been appointed as an independent legal expert to consider whether issues in the HBOS Reading Fraud were investigated and appropriately reported to authorities at the time by Lloyds Banking Group. At present the Dobbs review is ongoing and once completed, its findings will be shared with the FCA.

On Royal Bank of Scotland and GRG, the FCA has concluded their final investigation, which reaffirms the outcome of its enforcement investigation, which was announced in July 2018.

Finally, there are currently no plans for the Government to establish an independent review of the conduct of the Financial Conduct Authority in relation to the RBS and Lloyds Banking Group.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) cannot comment on individual cases. HMRC will investigate allegations of wrongdoing brought to their attention.

The Government is determined to tackle promoters and enablers of tax avoidance schemes and in March 2020, HMRC published their strategy for tackling promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The strategy outlines how HMRC will continue to take robust actions against promoters and enablers of tax avoidance.

Finance Bill 2021 includes new measures which will strengthen the existing anti-avoidance regimes and help HMRC act more swiftly against promoters. The Government has also announced a further package of measures to ensure promoters face stronger sanctions more quickly; the consultation was published on 23 March.

These proposals build on the enablers of defeated tax avoidance legislation that was introduced in 2017 and include provision for the publication of information, including the name of the enabler and the total number and amount of penalties incurred by the enabler, if they have been charged 50 or more penalties or £25,000 in penalties in any one year.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) cannot comment on individual cases. HMRC will investigate allegations of wrongdoing brought to their attention.

The Government is determined to tackle promoters and enablers of tax avoidance schemes and in March 2020, HMRC published their strategy for tackling promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The strategy outlines how HMRC will continue to take robust actions against promoters and enablers of tax avoidance.

Finance Bill 2021 includes new measures which will strengthen the existing anti-avoidance regimes and help HMRC act more swiftly against promoters. The Government has also announced a further package of measures to ensure promoters face stronger sanctions more quickly; the consultation was published on 23 March.

These proposals build on the enablers of defeated tax avoidance legislation that was introduced in 2017 and include provision for the publication of information, including the name of the enabler and the total number and amount of penalties incurred by the enabler, if they have been charged 50 or more penalties or £25,000 in penalties in any one year.

HMRC currently have thirteen live Corporate Criminal Offence (CCO) investigations with a further seventeen possible investigations under review. HMRC update these figures bi-annually on GOV.UK.

No corporate bodies have yet been prosecuted under the CCO for the failure to prevent the facilitation of UK tax evasion. This is because these investigations are extremely complex and take considerable time before they are ready to be passed to a prosecutor.

The CCO was implemented on 30 September 2017, which means HMRC are only able to consider potential investigations from that date. The offence applies solely to corporate bodies.

Individuals are prosecuted under pre-existing legislation that deals with tax evasion and the facilitation of tax evasion. Since April 2017, HMRC have prosecuted 60 facilitators of tax evasion. These cover a range of professional services and apply to different taxes and duties.

The CCO legislation was not brought in to simply increase the number of corporate prosecutions but to change long standing industry practices and reduce the opportunity for the facilitation of tax evasion to occur. There are positive signs of this happening with many organisations putting in place reasonable preventative procedures.

In 2019 to 2020 there were 456 (441 in 2018 to 2019) full-time equivalent staff working on international issues involving Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) including transfer pricing, diverted profits tax, Controlled Foreign Companies (CFCs) and cross border debt.

This figure includes time spent on international issues by dedicated international specialists, Corporation Tax specialists and policy and technical advisers.

These staff work with other expert industry and tax specialists to tackle issues that represent a substantial risk of tax loss to the Exchequer in line with HMRC’s “resource to risk” compliance policy.

HMRC have invested significant time in training staff to deal with international issues, including transfer pricing.

Information in the form requested is not readily available and could only be compiled at disproportionate cost.

Routine insolvency action has been paused by HMRC since the first lockdown in March 2020.

The figures below are for the 2020 calendar year relating to proceedings for insolvency which have been initiated by HMRC for failure to pay taxes when they were due:

Bankruptcy/Sequestration

January – March 2020 409

April – June 2020 0

July – September 2020 0

October – December 2020 0

Companies Winding Up/Liquidation

January – March 2020 1108

April – June 2020 9

July – September 2020 1

October – December 2020 1

These figures cover England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

HMRC only hold information on approved Creditor Voluntary Arrangements for the last three years, as follows:

2018: 118

2019: 142

2020: 118

At 31 December 2020 in nominal values, the Bank of England’s Asset Purchase Facility Fund held £625bn gilts, while a further £11bn of gilts were held in the Bank of England’s Sterling Bond Portfolio. Combined these represent 32.8% of the value of outstanding Government bonds, or 42.8% of outstanding conventional Government bonds.

The estimated number of individuals who have an annual income of less than the £12,500 Personal Tax Allowance in the 2019-20 tax year is 18.4 million.

Note:

1. Taxpayer numbers are shown to three significant figures

2. Figures provided are estimates for the 2019-20 tax year, when the Personal Tax Allowance reached £12,500.

3. The figures for 2019-20 are based on outturn data derived from the 2017-18 Survey of Personal Incomes (SPI) and projected using economic assumptions consistent with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s March 2020 Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

This estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes which represents a sample of individuals in contact with HMRC. However, HMRC do not hold information for all people with personal incomes below the income tax threshold. Further details are set out alongside the Income Tax Liabilities Statistics.

The Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) was established as the prudential regulator of firms which manage significant risk on their own balance sheet as a core part of their business and regulates and supervises banks, building societies, credit unions, insurers and systemic investment firms in the UK. This does not include any hedge funds or private equity firms, although such businesses may fall into scope of the PRA’s regulatory activity to the extent that they are part of wider banking or insurance groups. The Financial Conduct Authority is responsible for the regulation of other financial services firms not supervised by the PRA, including non-systemic investment firms.

The Financial Policy Committee (FPC) acts as the UK’s macro-prudential authority, tasked with identifying, monitoring and addressing emerging risks and vulnerabilities across the financial system. In its August 2020 Financial Stability Report, the FPC identified the need for further work domestically and internationally to review the resilience of investors and markets under stress, including leveraged investors. The relevant UK authorities are working with their international partners at the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to assess the role of leveraged investors in core funding markets, as set out in the FSB’s November 2020 Holistic Review of the March Market Turmoil.[1]

These institutional arrangements strike the right balance in securing a resilient and stable financial system and maintaining the UK's position as a leading financial centre for hedge fund and private equity investment - providing high quality jobs and capital investment to support businesses. The Government does not currently have plans to change these arrangements.

[1] https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P171120-2.pdf

HMRC estimates that 1.3m individuals earning below the personal allowance in 2017-18 made workplace pension contributions via Real Time Information (RTI) using relief at source arrangements. The personal allowance in 2017-18 was £11,500.

HMRC’s Survey of Personal Income (SPI) and administrative data was used to produce the estimates. The 2017-18 SPI data (published in March 2020) is the latest year available.

The General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) Advisory Panel is an independent body led by a Chair, appointed through an open recruitment process in line with Cabinet Office guidance. Members of the panel are appointed by the Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), advised by the Chair of the panel. There are no plans to introduce new legislation.

The Chair and other panel members do not receive remuneration, but HMRC reimburse expenses reasonably incurred by them in carrying out their duties. It is not possible for HMRC to provide details of expenses reimbursed to each member of the panel due to HMRC’s duty of confidentiality.

HMRC cannot comment on individual cases, but will investigate any allegations of wrongdoing brought to their attention.

The Government and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) are determined to continue to tackle promoters and enablers of tax avoidance schemes. In March 2020, HMRC published on GOV.UK their strategy for tackling promoters of tax avoidance schemes. The strategy sets out HMRC’s work to date and outlines how HMRC will continue to take robust actions against promoters and enablers of tax avoidance.

HMRC publish the standards they expect agents to adhere to and monitor these standards. HMRC have several powers to address poor agent practice in instances where the standard for agents is breached.

The General Anti-Abuse Rule (GAAR) Advisory Panel is an independent body led by a Chair, appointed through an open recruitment process in line with Cabinet Office guidance. Members of the panel are appointed by the Commissioners of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), advised by the Chair of the panel. There are no plans to introduce new legislation.

The Chair and other panel members do not receive remuneration, but HMRC reimburse expenses reasonably incurred by them in carrying out their duties. It is not possible for HMRC to provide details of expenses reimbursed to each member of the panel due to HMRC’s duty of confidentiality.

As was set out in HM Treasury’s latest EU Finances Statement, the Government’s latest forecast of the total net cost of the financial settlement reached with the EU under the Withdrawal Agreement is £30.2 billion. Of this, £8.1 billion corresponds to payments made before the end of 2020, and £22.1 billion corresponds to payments to be made after that date.

The Government has also committed to making a financial contribution to fund its participation in certain EU programmes in the future under the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The ultimate cost of this commitment will be determined by factors including the Gross Domestic Product of the UK and EU Member States, and finalised EU budgets for the programmes in question.

Non-banks are a growing area of the global and UK financial system. While they help to diversify the provision of finance to the economy, they may also pose risks. Recognising this growth, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s 2019 Fiscal Risks Report assessed some of the risks of shadow banking.

The Chancellor requested in March 2020, as part of the remit letter to the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee (FPC), that the FPC publishes a detailed assessment of the oversight and mitigation of systemic risks from the non-bank sector.

The FPC published the preliminary findings of this assessment in the August 2020 Financial Stability Report. It highlighted that, as observed in the March 2020 ‘dash for cash’, some non-banks may be vulnerable to liquidity shocks. The report outlined further work to address these risks, both domestically and internationally. The FPC will follow this with a more detailed report in 2021 outlining gaps in, and potential measures that may be taken to increase, non-bank resilience.

Alongside this, HM Treasury and the financial regulators are working internationally at the G20’s Financial Stability Board (FSB) to understand and address the vulnerabilities of the non-bank sector. The FSB has recently published assessments of the risks from non-banks in the ‘Holistic Review of the March Market Turmoil’ (November 2020) and the ‘Global Monitoring Report on Non-Bank Financial Intermediation’ (December 2020).

Information in the form requested is not readily available and could only be compiled at disproportionate cost.

HMRC do not currently publish an estimate for the cost of the Capital Gains Tax Annual Exempt Amount (AEA)[1]. A reliable estimate could only be made available at disproportionate cost.

[1] The AEA appears in the “cost unavailable” table for the structural tax relief official statistics here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/minor-tax-expenditures-and-structural-reliefs

Everyone who is entitled to the National Minimum Wage (NMW) should receive it.

HMRC enforce the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and National Living Wage (NLW) in line with the law and policy set out by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).

The majority of NMW cases are subject to civil (non-criminal) sanctions, which include penalties of up to 200% of the arrears, and public naming.

Prosecution does not guarantee payment of arrears to workers, can be lengthy, and is expensive for the taxpayer. HMRC therefore balance recovering NMW arrears for workers as quickly as possible with the robust enforcement of NMW and prosecution is generally reserved for the most serious cases that form part of a pattern of wider criminality and are referred to the Crown Prosecution Service who decide whether or not to prosecute.

HMRC have a strong enforcement record on the NMW and since 2010-11 have completed nearly 25,000 NMW investigations, identifying over £100 million in national minimum wage arrears for over 950,000 workers and levying more than £59 million in penalties.

The table below provides a breakdown of the number of employers prosecuted for breaches of National Minimum Wage legislation and the related outcome (fine imposed, costs imposed and compensation awarded) for each of the prosecutions in the last five (2015–2020) years.

¹ Fine imposed by the court on the business.

² Court costs payable by the prosecuted individual.

³ Compensation is any sum as decided in the judgment, to be paid to the individual affected by the employer’s actions to cover any financial loss or damage the successful party has suffered.

Her Majesty’s Government has taken this data from the report published by TheCityUK on the 9^th of April this year, entitled ‘Key facts about UK-based financial and related professional services 2020’[1]. This report states that in 2018/19, the UK Financial Services sector contributed an estimated £75.5 billion to the UK public finances, which comprised 10.5% of all UK tax receipts.

[1] ‘Key facts about UK-based financial and related professional services 2020’, TheCityUK, 7^th April 2020

HMRC are not able to provide information on organisations that have received financial support from the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS), owing to HMRC’s duty of confidentiality.

HMRC cannot publish identifying information that relates to their functions, which include the CJRS, unless there is an appropriate legal basis for publication. No such legal basis was in place for the CJRS prior to 12 November 2020 when the CJRS Direction of that date was signed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

In line with the published direction, as part of HMRC’s commitment to transparency and to deter fraudulent claims, HMRC will publish information about employers who claim for periods starting on or after 1 December 2020. This will not cover employer details for use of the CJRS prior to December.

Although HMRC cannot specify organisations that have claimed under the CJRS, by midnight on 18 October £41,400,000,000 worth of claims had been made under the scheme.

UK banks are subject to different and separate requirements in respect of solvency, capital maintenance and distribution.

The capital maintenance requirements stem from the Companies Act 2006, which apply to UK companies including companies that are banks. These require the determination of profits available for distribution, including for a public company, to be made by reference to the relevant accounts of a company. These accounts must be properly prepared in accordance with the Companies Act, with relevant accounting standards and with the overriding requirement that they must give a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss of the company.

Separately, and, in addition, banks in the UK are subject to the Prudential Regulation Authority’s (PRA’s) prudential capital requirements. These require banks to maintain appropriate capital resources, both in terms of quantity and quality, taking into account the risks to which they are exposed. These use as inputs some numbers taken or derived from a bank’s accounts but are otherwise a framework separate from that governing a company’s accounts.

To date, HMRC’s work on the Panama Papers has produced about £190 million in yield. Data from the Panama Papers has been fully brought into HMRC’s systems and the data continues to be used as part of their usual risking process.

HMRC regularly publish details of prosecutions, convictions and fines and will look to do the same in relation to their Panama Papers work when it is appropriate to do so.

It is not possible for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to provide details of any action taken in connection with this or any named organisation, for reasons of taxpayer confidentiality.

Should any tax agent be found to be enabling or facilitating tax avoidance then HMRC will use the full range of tools available, which include strict financial penalties, criminal sanctions, and public interest disclosures.

HMRC have reviewed all the documents relating to 142 taxpayers who had documents relating to their tax affairs disclosed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which have been referred to as the ‘Luxembourg Leaks’.

This work did not reveal a single case of material information where either the detail of the transactions had not already been provided to HMRC, or when examined did any more than confirm HMRC’s understanding of particular arrangements that were already known to HMRC.

The Government has taken resolute action since 2010 to clamp down on tax non-compliance and unfair outcomes. It has targeted a broad range of bad practice in order to ensure that everyone, from individuals to large multinationals, is required to pay the right amount at the right time.

It is not possible for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to provide details of any action taken in connection with this or any named organisation, for reasons of taxpayer confidentiality.

Should any tax agent be found to be enabling or facilitating tax avoidance then HMRC will use the full range of tools available, which include strict financial penalties, criminal sanctions, and public interest disclosures.

HMRC have reviewed all the documents relating to 142 taxpayers who had documents relating to their tax affairs disclosed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, which have been referred to as the ‘Luxembourg Leaks’.

This work did not reveal a single case of material information where either the detail of the transactions had not already been provided to HMRC, or when examined did any more than confirm HMRC’s understanding of particular arrangements that were already known to HMRC.

The Government has taken resolute action since 2010 to clamp down on tax non-compliance and unfair outcomes. It has targeted a broad range of bad practice in order to ensure that everyone, from individuals to large multinationals, is required to pay the right amount at the right time.

In June 2019, the Financial Conduct Authority released their final report regarding their investigative steps in relation to Royal Bank of Scotland, Global Restructuring Group (GRG).

The outcome of the report states that although GRG fell short of the high standards expected from their customers, the investigation by the FCA concluded that RBS did not treat their customers unfairly. However, in light of the findings, the FCA did provide RBS with clear recommendations to adhere to, which RBS have responded to with a series of actions they will undertake in order to address those concerns.

RBS rightly apologised for these mistakes, and set up a scheme to compensate victims. This scheme has, to date, paid out in excess of £150 million to complainants.

The estimates requested are not held by HM Treasury.

As you may know, a bank is defined as a UK institution that has permission under Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act (FSMA) (2000) to accept deposits and is a credit institution. Financial services, including banks, are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) or the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) which are independent non-governmental bodies, given statutory powers by the FSMA as amended by the Financial Services Act (2012) and financed entirely by the financial services industry.

Although the Treasury sets the legal framework for the regulation of financial services, it does not have investigative or prosecuting powers of its own. The Treasury has no general power of direction over the regulators and therefore cannot intervene in individual cases. You can find a list of FCA and PRA regulated firms on their websites at:

FCA: https://www.fca.org.uk/firms/financial-services-register

PRA: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/prudential-regulation/authorisations/which-firms-does-the-pra-regulate

The word ‘Bank’ is a sensitive word which requires approval of the Secretary of State for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) under section 55 of the Companies Act 2006 and The Company, Limited Liability Partnership and Business Names (Sensitive Words and Expressions) Regulations 2014. Companies House carries out this function on behalf of the Secretary of State. Anybody wishing to register a company name that includes the word ‘Bank’ must also first obtain a letter of non-objection from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) as required by the Regulations. On receipt of the letter on non-objection, Companies House will register the name.

There are currently no plans to publish an unredacted version of the report by Lord Justice Bingham into the Supervision of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.

Under the Money Laundering Regulations, the Treasury is responsible for appointing Anti Money Laundering (AML) and Counter Terrorism Financing (CTF) supervisors. It seeks to ensure they deliver a robust and risk-based approach to supervision, applying dissuasive sanctioning powers when appropriate, while minimising unnecessary burdens on regulated firms.

In 2018, the government established the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision (OPBAS) to oversee the 22 legal and accountancy Professional Body Supervisors (PBSs) and ensure a consistent standard of supervision. In addition, OPBAS has an overarching responsibility to strengthen the UK’s supervisory regime by facilitating increased information and intelligence sharing between PBSs, statutory AML supervisors and law enforcement.

The introduction of OPBAS reflects the findings of the government’s previous calls for information, which identified that the focus should be on the effectiveness of supervision, rather than the number of supervisors.^[1]

As part of the Economic Crime Plan, OPBAS committed to working with the 22 PBSs to ensure they have appropriate plans in place to address the AML/CTF weakness identified in their supervisory assessments and summarised in their first annual report, including in relation to the separation of functions.

Since publication of the first report, all PBSs have taken steps to address the weaknesses identified and have proposed action plans in place. OPBAS’s second report noted significant improvement in the suitability, in principle, of governance arrangements for AML supervision. At the end of 2018, 44% of PBSs lacked clear accountability for supervisory activity. By the end of 2019, this was reduced to zero. OPBAS will continue to monitor PBSs progress against these and assess their effectiveness to deliver more consistent supervisory standards.

Where OPBAS has identified deficiencies in PBSs’ oversight arrangements or practices, they have taken robust action, including using powers of direction. OPBAS will continue to take such action when appropriate with PBSs to ensure consistent high standards of supervision are achieved.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/call-for-information-anti-money-laundering-supervisory-regime; https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/anti-money-laundering-supervisory-review

It is not possible for HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to provide details of any action taken in connection with this organisation.

HMRC challenge scheme promoters and other enablers in the marketed avoidance supply chain in order to disrupt their business. On 19 March 2020, HMRC published their strategy for tackling promoters of mass-marketed tax avoidance schemes and those who facilitate the use of these schemes. The strategy sets out HMRC’s work to date and outlines how HMRC and Government will continue to take robust action against promoters of tax avoidance. The Promoter Strategy is available on GOV.UK.

As at 30 September 2021, the figures for individuals directly employed by the National Economic Crime Centre are as follows:

• Full Time Headcount: 233

• Part Time Headcount: 29

City of London Police (CoLP) entered into a three-year funding agreement for a total of £1.5m with Lloyds Banking Group in 2019. This agreement has been used to fund initiatives across policing to reduce fraud and economic crime.

This is in line with the goals of the government’s joint public-private sector Economic Crime Plan that will cut economic crime, including fraud.

The National Economic Crime Centre (NECC) has not received any sponsorship or funding from Lloyds Banking Group.

The NECC has one non-costing secondee from Lloyds. This is their third private sector secondee. All secondees complete a vetting process and sign a secondment agreement that includes restrictions on disclosure of National Crime Agency information.

The Ministry of Justice has published information on prosecutions, convictions and sentences for offences committed under both the Financial Services Act 2012 and the Criminal Justice Act 1993, from 2013 to 2019, available in the ‘Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code’ data tool, here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888344/HO-code-tool-principal-offence-2019.xlsx

No defendants were prosecuted where the principal offence fell under the Financial Services Act 2012 between 2013 and 2019.

In this instance, all offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1993 are under one Home Office offence code, so cannot be disaggregated. Search ‘Detailed offence’ in the data tool linked above for ‘Insider dealing’.

12 individuals were prosecuted and 13 were sentenced under the Criminal Justice Act 1993, between 2013 and 2019. Defendants who appear before both magistrates’ and Crown courts may be convicted and sentenced for a different offence to that for which they are counted as having been originally prosecuted if the offence is changed on conviction. Sentence outcomes were 3 suspended sentences and 10 immediate custodial sentences.

The Ministry of Justice has published information on prosecutions, convictions and sentences for offences committed under both the Financial Services Act 2012 and the Criminal Justice Act 1993, from 2013 to 2019, available in the ‘Principal offence proceedings and outcomes by Home Office offence code’ data tool, here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888344/HO-code-tool-principal-offence-2019.xlsx

No defendants were prosecuted where the principal offence fell under the Financial Services Act 2012 between 2013 and 2019.

In this instance, all offences under the Criminal Justice Act 1993 are under one Home Office offence code, so cannot be disaggregated. Search ‘Detailed offence’ in the data tool linked above for ‘Insider dealing’.

12 individuals were prosecuted and 13 were sentenced under the Criminal Justice Act 1993, between 2013 and 2019. Defendants who appear before both magistrates’ and Crown courts may be convicted and sentenced for a different offence to that for which they are counted as having been originally prosecuted if the offence is changed on conviction. Sentence outcomes were 3 suspended sentences and 10 immediate custodial sentences.