Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent discussions he has had with members of the Financial Services Consumer Panel on the appointment of members of that panel who are nominated by trade associations.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The FCA is an operationally independent non-governmental body and is solely responsible for everyday operational decisions. Appointments to the FCA’s statutory panels, including the Consumer Panel, are a matter for the FCA. The Treasury does not make those appointments although its role is to approve the decision taken by the FCA regarding the appointment or dismissal of the Panel’s Chair. It would not be appropriate for the Treasury to otherwise intervene in the FCA’s appointment process, beyond its statutory role in approving the appointment or dismissal of the Chair.
Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he had any discussions with the Bank of England on the potential to grant Greensill Capital access to its Covid Corporate Financing Facility.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
In the context of discussions about Covid support schemes, the Bank, as operators of the CCFF, were informed that HM Treasury were not minded to adjust the scheme to include supply chain finance.
Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will publish the minutes of the meetings held between officials in his Department and Greensill Capital; and whether there were any meetings that took place that were not minuted and for what reason.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
HM Treasury has released a range of information relating to this matter both proactively and in response to FOI requests including details of meetings held between Greensill and HM Treasury senior officials between April – June 2020.
Links to these releases can be found online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-greensill-meetings and https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/response-to-a-freedom-of-information-request-on-greensill
Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions his Department had with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the decision to make Greensill Capital an accredited lender under the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
There is a robust accreditation process in place for lenders seeking to lend through the coronavirus business lending schemes. This process is run independently by the British Business Bank (BBB), which is an arms-length body of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
HM Treasury’s only role in the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CLBILS) accreditation process is where lenders are seeking to make individuals loans of over £50 million, given the significant exposure such loans would represent to the taxpayer.
In order to lend at this level under CLBILS, lenders were required to complete an enhanced accreditation process via the BBB. This additional accreditation was generally restricted to lenders supervised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and approved for internal risk-based modelling, as the government (and the regulators) have confidence in the oversight of these lenders and their track record of business lending at this scale.
Once this additional accreditation process had been completed, if the BBB were prepared to accredit lenders to make loans over £50 million they would approach HM Treasury for a go/no-go decision on providing that lender with the enhanced accreditation. HM Treasury was not approached on this basis in relation to Greensill.
Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how many people in Wallasey have been furloughed through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in each month since the introduction of that scheme.
Answered by Jesse Norman
It is not possible to answer directly the question as data on the number of people furloughed whose jobs have been supported by the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) is not available. However, data is available for the number of employments furloughed with the support of the CJRS (a person may have multiple employments). Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) published statistics about the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme on 21 August 2020, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/coronavirus-job-retention-scheme-statistics-august-2020.
These statistics are the latest available to include figures for the number of jobs furloughed in local areas, and include the total number of jobs furloughed at any time in the Wallasey constituency. They also include figures for the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral. The number of jobs furloughed by Parliamentary constituency is not available for each month. The production of the figures depends on the matching of employment level CJRS data to other data held by HMRC. For records where this has been possible, the release reports that a cumulative total of 11,200 jobs had been furloughed under CJRS for employees living in Wallasey. This figure is based on claims received to 31 July and covers all jobs supported by the CJRS up to the end of June (when the scheme closed to claims for employments not already furloughed).
The next release of these statistics will provide data on the number of jobs furloughed by Parliamentary constituency at 31 August. This is due to be published on 22 October. More information on this release can be found here:
Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment his Department has made of the long term financial effect of the covid-19 outbreak on (a) women, (b) BAME workers, (c) self employed workers and (d) gig economy workers.
Answered by Jesse Norman
It is too early to assess the long-term financial impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on individual groups, but the Government recognises the challenges that the current crisis is posing to all groups in society, including the most vulnerable.
The Government has delivered an unprecedented package of support, including the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme, and increases to Universal Credit. This has helped protect incomes, jobs, and support those most in need.
The Government remains committed to supporting the lowest-paid workers and helping unemployed people go back into work, and the Government is continuing to review what can be done to support those most vulnerable to job loss and to aid the UK’s economic recovery.
Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will publish the titles of the reviews that his Department is undertaking.
Answered by Simon Clarke
The Treasury is currently undertaking the following formal reviews on matters of public policy or delivery:
Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what estimate he has made of the number and proportion of high street bank branches that have closed in (a) the North West, (b) Merseyside and (c) Wallasey in the last 10 years.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The Treasury does not make assessments of the bank branch network. The decision to close a branch is a commercial issue for the management team of the bank. However, Government believes it is important the impact on communities must be understood, considered and mitigated where possible. That is why the Government continues to be very supportive of the Access to Banking Standard and the commitment it places on banks to minimise the impact of branch closures, including by ensuring that customers are aware of the alternative ways they can continue to access banking services. These include the Post Office, which allows 95% of business and 99% of personal banking customers to carry out their everyday banking at 11,500 Post Office branches across the UK.
The Financial Conduct Authority undertook an analysis of branch closures as part of their Strategic Review of Retail Banking Business Models. This analysis can be found in Annex 1 of the final report.
Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps his Department is taking to ensure that (a) investment choices available to workplace pension customers are regularly reviewed by Independent Governance Committees and (b) those investment choices are aligned with the interests of customers.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) introduced rules in 2015 to require contract-based pension providers to set up independent governance committees (IGCs) to address poor consumer outcomes.
IGCs have a duty to scrutinise the value for money of the provider’s workplace personal pension schemes, taking into account transaction costs, raising concerns and making recommendations to the provider’s board as appropriate. IGCs have a duty to assess whether all the investment choices available, including default options, are suitable for the interests of consumers.
In 2016, the FCA reviewed IGCs and found that they were “generally effective” in influencing and advancing cost reductions for members. The review also found that the Independent Project Board’s work in auditing high legacy charges and implementing IGCs had been successful. As a result, a substantial majority of consumers received improved outcomes regarding costs and charges, with 1m consumers receiving reduced costs and charges.
The FCA has announced that it will undertake a further review of IGCs in 2019/20.
Asked by: Angela Eagle (Labour - Wallasey)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make it his policy that Independent Governance Committees attached to contract-based workplace pensions have a duty to monitor the suitability of the retail fund choices available to scheme members.
Answered by John Glen - Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) introduced rules in 2015 to require contract-based pension providers to set up independent governance committees (IGCs) to address poor consumer outcomes.
IGCs have a duty to scrutinise the value for money of the provider’s workplace personal pension schemes, taking into account transaction costs, raising concerns and making recommendations to the provider’s board as appropriate. IGCs have a duty to assess whether all the investment choices available, including default options, are suitable for the interests of consumers.
In 2016, the FCA reviewed IGCs and found that they were “generally effective” in influencing and advancing cost reductions for members. The review also found that the Independent Project Board’s work in auditing high legacy charges and implementing IGCs had been successful. As a result, a substantial majority of consumers received improved outcomes regarding costs and charges, with 1m consumers receiving reduced costs and charges.
The FCA has announced that it will undertake a further review of IGCs in 2019/20.