Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment she has made of the implications for her policies of the recommendations of the report entitled Releasing Mortgage Prisoners: proposed solutions and illustrative costings, published by the LSE in February 2023; and whether she plans to implement those recommendations.
Answered by Tulip Siddiq - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
This Government understands the challenges that mortgage prisoners face and will work with regulators and the industry to ensure that this issue is properly considered, including looking at the recommendations of the 2023 LSE report.
There are significant measures in place to protect vulnerable mortgage borrowers across the mortgage market, including mortgage prisoners. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) rules require lenders to engage individually with their customers who are struggling or who are worried about their payments in order to provide tailored support. Closed book lenders must also comply with the FCA’s Consumer Duty, which ensures firms prioritise fair treatment and good outcomes for their customers.
Additionally, the Government has a number of measures in place to help people to avoid repossession, including Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI) loans for those in receipt of an income-related benefit; the Housing Loss Prevention Advice Service (HLPAS); and protection in the courts through the Pre-Action Protocol, which makes it clear that repossession must always be the last resort for lenders.
Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will announce a timeline for a decision on whether additional measures will be introduced to further support mortgage prisoners.
Answered by Bim Afolami
The Government understands that being unable to switch your mortgage can be extremely stressful. Alongside the Financial Conduct Authority and industry, we have shown we are willing to act through the introduction of a ‘modified affordability assessment’, which removes the regulatory barriers that prevented some customers, who otherwise may have been able to switch, from accessing new products. We are also regularly in contact with key stakeholders, including recently with the UK Mortgage Prisoners campaign group.
The Government remains committed to this issue and will continue to work with industry and wider stakeholders to determine if there are proposals that will meaningly benefit affected borrowers and be fair to other borrowers in the wider market.
Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the Financial Conduct Authority's Mortgage Prisoner Review published on 29 November 2021, what assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of the findings of that report.
Answered by John Glen
In November 2021, I laid before Parliament a review on the issue of mortgage prisoners conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This review found that there are 47,000 mortgage prisoners who might benefit from switching to a new mortgage deal but are considered too high risk to do so, despite being up to date with payments.
The review makes clear that the reasons mortgage prisoners are unable to switch are complex and varied, including a high proportion of interest-only mortgage borrowers with no clear repayment plan and pre-financial crisis legacy issues such as borrowers self-certifying their income on their loan applications. A comprehensive understanding of the circumstances of mortgage prisoners is therefore crucial in progressing work and the FCA’s review provides the key insight necessary to facilitate this. Following this and previous interventions to help borrowers switch, the Government is working with industry to determine if any further solutions that can be found to help mortgage prisoners.
This further work must consider the practicality of solutions and their effects on the wider mortgage market, including the resilience of firms and fairness to other borrowers. A cap on the Standard Variable Rates (SVRs) charged by inactive firms would be an unprecedented market intervention and would undermine the principle of risk-based pricing which underlies the mortgage market. It would entail risks to the financial stability of firms which would be unable to vary their rates in line with their costs of funding and would be deeply unfair to borrowers in the wider mortgage market who pay similar rates to mortgage prisoners. It is worth noting that the SVRs charged by inactive firms are in line with those paid by borrowers in the active market.
The Government continues to examine what further practical and proportionate solutions existing to help mortgage prisoners which do not pose unacceptable financial stability risks or are unfair to other borrowers in the mortgage market.
Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he plans to cap standard variable mortgage rates for inactive lenders to protect people who cannot move their mortgages.
Answered by John Glen
In November 2021, I laid before Parliament a review on the issue of mortgage prisoners conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). This review found that there are 47,000 mortgage prisoners who might benefit from switching to a new mortgage deal but are considered too high risk to do so, despite being up to date with payments.
The review makes clear that the reasons mortgage prisoners are unable to switch are complex and varied, including a high proportion of interest-only mortgage borrowers with no clear repayment plan and pre-financial crisis legacy issues such as borrowers self-certifying their income on their loan applications. A comprehensive understanding of the circumstances of mortgage prisoners is therefore crucial in progressing work and the FCA’s review provides the key insight necessary to facilitate this. Following this and previous interventions to help borrowers switch, the Government is working with industry to determine if any further solutions that can be found to help mortgage prisoners.
This further work must consider the practicality of solutions and their effects on the wider mortgage market, including the resilience of firms and fairness to other borrowers. A cap on the Standard Variable Rates (SVRs) charged by inactive firms would be an unprecedented market intervention and would undermine the principle of risk-based pricing which underlies the mortgage market. It would entail risks to the financial stability of firms which would be unable to vary their rates in line with their costs of funding and would be deeply unfair to borrowers in the wider mortgage market who pay similar rates to mortgage prisoners. It is worth noting that the SVRs charged by inactive firms are in line with those paid by borrowers in the active market.
The Government continues to examine what further practical and proportionate solutions existing to help mortgage prisoners which do not pose unacceptable financial stability risks or are unfair to other borrowers in the mortgage market.
Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what recent assessment the Government has made of the potential effect on authors of removing VAT from the sale of e-books.
Answered by Jesse Norman - Shadow Leader of the House of Commons
The Government keeps all taxes under review, including Value Added Tax (VAT).
Amendments to the VAT regime as it applies to physical publications and e-publications must be carefully assessed against policy, economic and fiscal considerations. Any representations on this issue, including those from authors and their representatives, will be considered as part of the fiscal events process.
Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps the Government is taking to identify and deliver efficiencies in the pharmacy sector.
Answered by Elizabeth Truss
The Department of Health & Social Care, with NHS England and NHS Improvement, is currently in the process of working with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC) to determine the Community Pharmacy Contractual Framework settlement for 2019/20. These are confidential negotiations and as such I am unable to provide any detail on these discussions at this time. The Government is committed however to working with the PSNC to deliver a fair settlement for the NHS services community pharmacies provide; one which will enable the Government to deliver our longer-term ambition of fully integrated primary medical and community services, whilst also allowing us to realise opportunities to increase value for money.
Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the (a) content on disclosure of risk and future performance and (b) other content in Key Information Documents prepared in accordance with the Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products Regulations 2017.
Answered by John Glen
The Packaged Retail and Insurance-based Investment Products (PRIIPs) Regulation has applied since 1 January 2018.
In July 2018 the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) put out a Call for Input to assess the initial experiences of both firms and consumers of the new requirements introduced by the PRIIPs Regulations. These requirements include those relating to the content of Key Information Documents.
The FCA have committed to providing a publicly available feedback statement on their Call for Input in early 2019.
Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether under the 4th Money Laundering Directive there are minimum transaction thresholds below which customer due diligence is not required for trade and investment in digital currencies.
Answered by Steve Barclay
The European Union's Fourth Anti Money Laundering Directive (4MLD) was implemented into UK legislation by 'The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017', which came in to force on 26 June 2017. Digital currency exchanges are not regulated for the purposes of 4MLD, so there is no requirement to undertake Customer Due Diligence for trade and investment in digital currencies at present.
The government has however committed to bringing digital currencies into the scope of anti-money laundering and counter terrorist financing (AML/CTF) regulation. Provisional political agreement has recently been reached at EU-level to amend 4MLD to bring digital currency exchange platforms and custodian wallet providers into the AML/CTF regime.
These amendments will require Member States to oblige these entities to conduct customer due diligence when establishing a business relationship, when carrying out occasional transactions of €15,000 or more, when carrying out a transfer of funds exceeding €1,000, where there is a suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing, and when there are doubts about the veracity or adequacy of previously obtained customer identification data.
Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government plans to introduce deposit guarantee protections for consumers holding digital currencies.
Answered by Steve Barclay
The Government has no current plans to introduce deposit guarantee protections for consumers holding digital currencies, but keeps all policy under review.
Asked by: Chris Evans (Labour (Co-op) - Caerphilly)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government has made an estimate of potential savings to the public purse arising from UK taxpayers being able to pay their taxes in digital currencies.
Answered by Mel Stride - Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
HMRC does not currently offer digital currencies as a payment method and there are no plans to do so in the future.