Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(4 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Government are committed to supporting people to save and invest, and we want to build a better investment culture. Currently, 85% of people with savings income do not pay tax on it. As we announced at the Budget from next month, we will expand the help to save scheme to all universal credit claimants in work.
Alex Mayer
The nation’s favourite way to save is through premium bonds. Does the Minister think that they are good for the country and a valuable way of encouraging saving? For everyone who has them, they are quite exciting every month.
Emma Reynolds
I think that premium bonds do provide excitement, not least in my parents’ household, where they are very popular. They are already well promoted and popular, and we have seen annual investments in premium bonds increase by more than 50% since March 2019. The funds raised through them go towards supporting vital public services.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to extend the help to save scheme, which has been running for seven years. Martin Lewis describes it as
“a very clever scheme and one that will work for many people.”
May I urge the Minister to look at what needs to be done to raise awareness of it, because the actual uptake is very low, given that the Government have been giving £1,200 over four years? It is critical that the right investment in promoting it happens, because it is such a brilliant scheme.
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree with one of my predecessors more. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. It is a great scheme and now that we are expanding it, we will take that opportunity to promote it better.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
We all know how important it is to encourage savings, because so many people are a paycheque away from poverty, but there has been a lot of discussion about lazy capital in cash-only ISAs, for example, and other savings accounts. I know there is a drive by Government to see greater investment. Would the Minister like to expand on the Government’s thoughts on that? In particular, can she make any comments about the security of the cash ISA?
Emma Reynolds
Cash savings provide a vital source of savings for a rainy day, and we recognise that. Equally, we want to build a better investment culture in our society, so that it is not just the 8% of people who can afford financial advice who can have the opportunity of better rewards by investing in British companies and others in our economy.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
On that point, it has been widely reported that the Chancellor is planning to slash the amount of cash that savers can save in ISAs from £20,000 to £4,000 a year. Will the Chancellor rule out this punitive measure, which will see savings drop and push even more people into income tax?
Emma Reynolds
We are committed to promoting savings and investment, as I said in an earlier answer. One measure we are looking at is the Financial Conduct Authority’s review of the advice guidance boundary. As I said in a previous answer, I do not want it just to be the 8% of people who can afford financial advice who reap the rewards of investing in our economy. We keep all taxes under review.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The City of London has been a leader of innovation in the world of finance and savings for a few hundred years now, and it has been successful because it has always seized opportunities and innovation when presented. In that spirit, we are pleased that the Chancellor in her Mansion House speech embraced the concept of securities tokenisation, but we now find that the catalyst for this innovation in the UK—a pilot for the digital gilt instrument known as DIGIT—has found itself in a two-year black hole. Innovation is not something that can hang around for two years, so will the Minister give assurances that she will do everything she can to deliver DIGIT as soon as possible?
Emma Reynolds
That sounds like a criticism of the previous Government. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are committed to innovation and to DIGIT.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner for the breweries in his constituency. We want the drinks sector to go from strength to strength. We are reviewing the responses to the consultation on the threshold that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
What are this Government doing to ensure innovation in UK tech companies, such as Kao Park in my constituency, so that they can drive economic growth as part of world-class AI computer ecosystems?
Emma Reynolds
Harlow is home to one of the UK’s largest supercomputers. We are taking forward the AI action plan and we also have the tech adoption review, which will look at how we can unlock the potential of AI in our high-growth sectors.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
My constituent is one of hundreds of people who suffered from the collapse of Collateral. While the Financial Conduct Authority has apologised to investors for failing to act faster to stop Collateral’s fraudulent activities, I am concerned that, without internal changes, the FCA will make similar mistakes again. Should there not be an investigation into the FCA’s handling of the case?
Emma Reynolds
I am happy to meet the hon. Lady and look at the case she mentions, because I need to get more detail.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Transport Committee has looked at the economic growth case for the Heathrow expansion and has heard conflicting evidence on the project’s growth impact on regions away from London and the south-east, and also on other carbon-using sectors. Will the Chancellor ask Heathrow Airport to release the full text of the Frontier Economics report on which she made her decision to expand Heathrow?
Contingencies Fund Advance: National Savings and Investments
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
HM Treasury has agreed additional resource DEL and capital DEL funding of £88,414,000 for National Savings and Investments (NS&I) as part of spending review 2025 phase 1 during the 2024 autumn Budget. The additional resource supports NS&I’s business transformation programme which will see it transition to a modernised operating model, with multiple service delivery partners. The funding also supports the capital DEL requirements for NS&I’s moving between offices in London.
Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £40,630,000 and capital of £17,120,000 has been sought in a supplementary estimate for NS&I. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £57,750,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS453]
Bank of England and Treasury: Financial Relationship
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I can announce today the conclusion of a Bank of England and HM Treasury five-yearly review of the Bank’s capital framework parameters, as set out in section 2B of the Bank and HM Treasury financial relationship memorandum of understanding.
The review concluded that:
The capital framework has been effective in delivering its intended objectives at inception in 2018: to ensure that the Bank is equipped with capital resources consistent with the monetary and financial stability remits it has been given by Parliament.
The existing parameters of the capital framework remain adequate to support the Bank’s balance sheet.[1]
The existing Bank-HMT financial arrangements, as set out in the MoU, are sufficient to support the bank’s planned transition to a demand-driven operating framework fully backed by repo.[2]
The Bank and HM Treasury will keep these arrangements under review during the Bank’s balance sheet transition to a new steady state in coming years, ensuring close engagement as per the existing governance and information sharing channels set out in the MoU.
The Bank and HM Treasury have updated the MoU accordingly, and this can be accessed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-between-hm-treasury-and-the-bank-of-england-2025
[1] The parameters of the capital framework include a target, a floor, and a ceiling. As set out in the 2018 letter from the Governor of the Bank of England to the Chancellor, the values of the capital parameters are £0.5 billion for the floor, £3.5 billion for the target and £5.5 billion for the ceiling. This letter can be accessed at https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/letter/2018/governor-letter-210618.pdf
[2] Further detail on the transition of the Bank’s operating framework can be accessed through the following attachments:
“Transitioning to a repo-led operating framework”—Bank of England https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/paper/2024/dp/transitioning-to-a-repo-led-operating-framework
“The importance of central bank reserves”—lecture by Andrew Bailey https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2024/may/andrew-bailey-lecture-london-school-of-economics-charles-goodhart
“Let’s get ready to repo”—speech by Victoria Saporta https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2024/july/victoria-saporta-speech-at-afme-seminar
[HCWS456]
Low-income Countries: Debt Cancellation
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Thank you for calling me, Ms McVey. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, and I am sure not the last.
I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for drawing attention to these issues and for bringing this debate on debt cancellation to Westminster Hall today. I also thank the other Members, whose speeches have made for a rich discussion on this issue. I will mention them briefly and then hope to come to everyone’s questions, should time allow. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his kind words about my appointment—I am still early in my time in this role. I also thank him for underlining the importance of the role of charities in the development work that they do in low-income and vulnerable countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) spoke with great passion about his experience working in Somaliland. He brings great insights to the House after working in that capacity previously. I thank the hon. Members for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) for stressing that the UK needs to restore our leadership on international development. I will come to some of their questions later in my contribution.
I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for raising crucial points about the situation that many low-income countries vulnerable to the impacts of climate change find themselves in. I will say a little more about that, too.
The Government are highly concerned by the debt challenges faced by many low and middle-income countries, with 3.3 billion people living in countries that spend more on servicing their debt than on health or education—a point made by many hon. Members. Among low-income countries, 10 are currently in debt distress and 25 are at high risk, and there is an urgent need to address the vulnerabilities. As a Government, we are fully committed to tackling unsustainable debt burdens in a way that supports development needs and helps countries address those vulnerabilities.
We are acting in three key ways. I will attempt to answer questions, particularly from my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green who secured the debate, when discussing the three key ways. The first is on addressing liquidity challenges; the second is on ensuring effective debt restructurings; and the third is on promoting debt resilience.
First, on addressing liquidity challenges, we are working with international partners to address immediate liquidity pressures facing many countries, which are crowding out vital spending on climate, health and education. We support the IMF and World Bank’s three-pillar approach, which is designed to support countries with high debt repayments. The first pillar is focused on action from vulnerable countries to improve revenue mobilisation and implement sound economic policies. The second focuses on ensuring that countries receive new flows of finance at concessional rates from international financial institutions and other development partners. The final pillar looks at providing case-by-case action to reduce the cost of existing debt burdens where needed.
Secondly, we are working to address debt vulnerabilities through improving the effectiveness of debt restructurings for countries in debt distress. The G20 common framework remains the best mechanism for co-ordinating debt restructurings to address unsustainable debt burdens, but further progress is needed.
The UK is working closely with the G20 and other international partners to ensure the framework delivers more timely, orderly and predictable debt restructurings. I know that is high on the priority list of the South African G20 presidency this year. The UK will be pressing for rapid implementation of the lessons learned from the common framework, which were agreed under the Brazilian presidency of the G20 last year.
The private sector, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members, must also play its part in debt restructuring efforts. We are actively engaging with private sector partners—for example, through the global sovereign debt roundtable—to ensure continued private sector support for addressing the debt challenges faced by countries, leveraging the City of London’s leading role in sovereign debt markets.
Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, mentioned the issue of private creditors and whether we needed legislation to force them to participate. The Government are not currently seeing evidence that private creditors are refusing to participate in debt restructurings. Recently, private bondholders have agreed to debt treatments for common framework countries, including Zambia and Ghana. We are working closely with the private sector through bilateral meetings, engagement with representative institutions and Paris club discussions.
Hon. Members also raised the issue of comparable treatment by private creditors. I reiterate that both Zambia and Ghana have reached agreements on debt restructurings with their private bondholders. Official creditors have deemed these comparable with their own restructurings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green raised the need for UK leadership on debt relief, and we heard that from others, too. I highlight that the UK has a strong track record of pushing for effective and holistic solutions to debt challenges, including supporting the IMF’s three-pillar approach for countries facing liquidity challenges and pushing for more effective co-operation and co-ordination under the G20’s common framework. The UK also co-ordinates debt treatment through our membership of the Paris club and our commitments to the G20 common framework in partnership with other creditors.
This is a key point: unilaterally writing off debt owed to the UK would not be in the interests of the UK taxpayer—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), mentioned the UK taxpayer, of course—which would be subsidising ongoing payments to other creditors if done unilaterally. The Government are therefore working closely with borrowers, official and private creditors, and the IMF and World Bank to strengthen the wider debt architecture and provide timely and co-ordinated restructurings for countries, where needed to support holistic debt sustainability for low-income countries.
The third way that the Government are pursuing this issue is through tackling unsustainable debt by promoting greater resilience in debt markets. In response to the shadow Minister, I mention that the UK is committed to provide sovereign financing on sustainable terms and to act in an open and transparent manner to support global debt sustainability.
We are playing a leadership role internationally in several key ways. The hon. Members for Melksham and Devizes and for Esher and Walton asked what the UK was doing to provide leadership.
Jim Shannon
My contribution, not that it was better than anybody else’s, put forward the idea that the countries we are helping with debt might be able to supply us with some goods as a way of paying us back, rather than making a financial repayment. Is that something that the Minister and the Government would look at?
Emma Reynolds
I am not sure that is something we are actively considering, but I will check and write to the hon. Gentleman.
In December 2024, we were the first country to publish our self-assessment against the G20’s operational guidelines for sustainable financing. In line with those guidelines, we publish annual reports on the total stock of debt owed to the UK, including reports on our new sovereign lending transactions.
Finally, we are committed to provide sovereign financing on sustainable terms, adhering to the OECD’s sustainable lending principles. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green also suggested creating a private sector transparency register. The UK supports all initiatives to improve debt transparency and is open to considering proposals for such a register. We also acknowledge the ongoing work by Georgetown University in this area.
The UK has led the way in promoting debt resilience through the introduction of contractual innovations, an approach that the IMF has found to be working well. Under our G7 presidency in 2021, the UK developed two contractual innovations together with private sector stakeholders. The first relates to external shocks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green mentioned in his speech. Climate resilient debt clauses help to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable countries by suspending debt repayments in the wake of external shocks, which frees up fiscal space for the country. The UK has led the way by including CRDCs in our own lending and calling for all lenders to adopt CRDCs by the end of this year.
Second, the UK helped to develop majority voting provisions, which are for use by the private sector specifically for syndicated lending. MVPs allow a majority of creditors to bind the minority to the terms of a restructuring and thereby mitigate the risk of a minority of creditors holding out in a restructuring scenario, which hon. Members mentioned in their contributions, and enable more efficient debt restructuring processes.
On Monday, at her speech at the London Stock Exchange, the Minister for Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), announced that the FCDO will provide technical assistance for borrower countries that intend to include majority voting provisions in their contractual agreements with private sector lenders.
I will now turn to a couple of questions that were asked during the debate. I apologise if I do not get to answer all the questions in the time available; I promise to write to hon. Members if I do not get to all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green asked about reforming the governance of international organisations. We agree that more needs to be done. First, we must change the international financial system in order to deliver a fairer deal for developing countries, including by using our board seats at the IMF and the World Bank, for a bolder approach on unsustainable debt. Secondly, we need to ensure that our system is more representative of those most in need, so we will make the case for not only fairer outcomes, but fairer representation in how we represent them.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, asked whether the Government would return to spending 0.7% of GDP on development, which the last Labour Government were very proud to commit to and reach. This Government remain committed to restoring ODA spending to 0.7% as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. Although the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts show that the tests have not yet been met, we continue to monitor these forecasts closely and remain one of the top ODA providers in the G7.
There were a number of questions about climate, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill, and I want to make a few comments about that. To strengthen the resilience of vulnerable countries and free up fiscal space when responding to shocks caused by climate change, the UK has led the way in encouraging the broader adoption of climate resilient debt clauses, which suspend debt repayments, on a cost-neutral basis, in the wake of exogenous shocks. We welcome creditors who have committed to providing CRDCs, and encourage others to follow suit.
My hon. Friend also said that the common framework should be expanded to middle-income countries and offer an automatic suspension for countries that apply for restructuring. The UK is fully committed to making the common framework a success. We support expansion of the framework to middle-income countries and providing automatic debt standstills for countries that apply for restructuring under the framework. We continue to push for those reforms in the G20. I hope that answers her question on that point.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romford, for his contribution—I think this is the first time that we have debated this way. He asked about reassurance on sound economic policy and preventing corruption. We agree that any lending and policy must be agreed on a sustainable basis. First, the scale of debt treatments is set under the IMF’s debt sustainability analysis. Secondly, the UK is committed to acting in an open and transparent way, as we have shown by publishing our own self-assessment against G20 guidelines. The hon. Gentleman asked a number of other questions. He was talking about open-ended commitments and sustainability. I think we all agree we want to reduce the reliance of low-income countries on foreign debt. That is what this debate is about, and we want a sustainable solution. He asked about the role of China specifically. I am happy to write to him, in a follow-up to his questions, on that. All I will say now is that it is really important that we work with all international partners on this issue, because only by working multilaterally will we have success in the sense of providing sustainable solutions. We do not think we can act alone.
I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions during today’s important debate. Together with the international community, we must work actively and urgently in order to address the significant debt challenges faced by vulnerable countries, and the Government are committed to doing just that.
High Streets: Autumn Budget 2024
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing the debate and thank her for sharing her story of working in her mum’s gift shop. It was very moving to hear that she has had direct experience of working in a shop on the high street. I also thank her for her survey of local small businesses on her seven high streets, which is an impressive number. She outlined very well the importance of the businesses there; I think she said that there are 197 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, employing some 6,000 people. I thank her for sharing those statistics, and the feedback from those businesses.
I share the hon. Member’s passion for the regeneration of our high streets. I think it is a concern for Members across the House. High streets are focal points of economic activity, but most importantly—she said this in her speech—they are often a key part of the unique character of our communities. We know that high street businesses are contending with a range of challenges. She listed some of them, but I will list a couple: changing consumer shopping habits and the rise of online shopping, and a series of economic headwinds, including the pandemic, which we know was particularly difficult for small, independent businesses on the high street.
The Government are committed to reforming Britain’s economy to bring about a decade of national renewal. Creating an environment in which our high streets are able to flourish is critical to that commitment. In her speech, the hon. Member recognised the Government’s dire economic inheritance from the Conservatives, none of whom are in the Chamber. We had some very difficult decisions to make in the Budget, but it was necessary to wipe the slate clean to deliver the economic stability that high street businesses need.
Mr MacDonald
Will the Minister say why taxes were put on poor, struggling organisations, such as high-street shops and hotels, rather than the massive online businesses that are emptying our high streets? Why did she not consider imposing a higher rate of corporation tax or income tax, rather than hitting the poorest businesses in our society?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Member pre-empts my next sentence, so I thank him for that. We have committed to reforming business rates, because we need a fairer system, fit for the 21st century. That important part of our reforms and plans will, I hope, benefit the businesses that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted spoke about.
Rachel Gilmour
In recent weeks, I have been working with an excellent organisation called Family Business UK. Before Christmas, it did some research on the impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on family businesses, and it is about to do another round of research. Do the Minister’s officials want to avail themselves of the results of that research, so that they have better context?
Emma Reynolds
Ministers are always happy to hear from hon. Members. I suggest that the hon. Member writes to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury with that feedback. I should note that this is not my policy area; the Exchequer Secretary is visiting small businesses as we speak, so I am standing in for him, but I am sure that he will welcome that feedback from the hon. Lady.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted and tried to note down all her questions, but if I do not get to all of them, I am happy to write to her after the debate; I hope that is helpful. She asked whether there were any mitigations, and I think she asked us to cancel some of the plans in the Budget. I am afraid that I cannot give her that assurance. The changes to national insurance will come into force on 1 April. As I said, we had to make difficult decisions, and that was one of the most difficult.
The hon. Member asked whether we were meeting small businesses. The Exchequer Secretary is meeting a range of small businesses, as are Treasury officials, before formulating our plan to reform business rates, which I will talk about briefly. She asked questions about inheritance tax; I will write to her on that, to ensure she gets the right answer. She also asked about local government. I was not entirely sure about the question, so perhaps we can clarify that, and I will write to her on that as well.
Turning in more detail to the hon. Member’s points about national insurance, one of the toughest decisions we took in the Budget was to raise the rate of employer national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%, but we recognised the need to protect the smallest businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses asked us specifically about that, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500. That means that more than half of businesses with national insurance contribution liabilities will either see no change at all or be taken out of paying national insurance contributions. As I said, that was a key demand from small businesses.
To support businesses, including those on the high street, the Budget honoured the manifesto commitment to not raise corporation tax; it set out the tax road map for this Parliament, in which we will not change corporation tax, which means we have the lowest rate in the G7. All that will support businesses, from restaurants to retailers, to invest. On the high street, we announced at the Budget major support for pubs; we are cutting alcohol duty on qualifying draught products, which make up approximately 60% of the alcoholic drinks sold in pubs. That represents an overall reduction in duty bills of over £85 million a year, and is equivalent to a 1p duty reduction on a typical pint.
The hon. Member raised concerns about the business rate system; let me address those in more detail. We very much believe that for too long, the business rates system has placed an unfair burden on high-street retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, as she mentioned. To support those sectors, we intend to introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values of less than £500,000 from 2026-27. That will allow us to provide stability after the ongoing uncertainty of the one-year retail and hospitality leisure relief, which has been extended year by year since the pandemic. That tax cut will be sustainably funded not by increases in taxes on working people, which we promised not to introduce, but through a higher tax rate on the most valuable 1% of business properties in the country. That will capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants, as well as other out-of-town businesses that draw footfall away from high streets.
Those business rates reforms provide the certainty that businesses need to invest while protecting the public finances. The Government have already introduced to the House primary legislation that will provide the underpinning of those reforms, and the exact rates for the new multipliers will be confirmed later this year in the autumn Budget.
Sarah Dyke
Many rural town centres in Glastonbury and Somerton, and the businesses within them, are really worried about business rates. Will the Minister consider implementing a fundamental business rates overhaul for small businesses in rural areas?
Emma Reynolds
We need to treat all small businesses equally. I understand the hon. Lady’s perspective, but I do not think that it would be fair or easy to have a business rates system that distinguished between rural and non-rural. What is rural? I know the constituency of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted rather well because I live not too far away. Tring is a town there, but other places in her constituency would be quite difficult to categorise as rural or non-rural, so I do not think that we can go down that route, although I understand why the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is trying to tempt us down it; I do not think that would work.
Victoria Collins
The Minister talks about business rates and mentioned Tring in Hertfordshire. A problem that a lot of local businesses have mentioned is that the rateable value is high because property costs are high, even if what they sell is of lower value. The difficulty is that they are paying a lot when they might not have high turnover. Will the Government consider mitigations for those running businesses in areas with high property costs?
Emma Reynolds
I am here in my ministerial capacity, of course, but I also represent High Wycombe in the south-east, so I understand her point, and promise to take it back to the Department, and to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.
Levelling the playing field for the high street is just the start, and we are committed to transforming the whole system in the longer term. As we set out in the “Transforming Business Rates” policy paper that we published alongside the Budget, the Government will create a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. It is important that we work in partnership with high-street businesses to get the reforms right. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted for bringing the voice of small businesses in her constituency to our proceedings.
Government officials have undertaken a series of roundtable events to understand from businesses across all sectors and sizes how they think reform of the system can best be delivered. Over 200 businesses have already given their feedback at those roundtables. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is leading that work and engaging with a broad range of high-street businesses, as are officials in my Department.
Richard Foord
I appreciate that it is perhaps the Exchequer Secretary who would know this, but will the Government make sure that the reform of business rates that they are proposing is not negative for those small businesses with a very small rateable value that do not currently pay business rates at all?
Emma Reynolds
Indeed. The point of the reforms is to better protect small businesses. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are already small businesses that are protected, but we want to ensure that those small businesses that are above the current thresholds are also protected, and do not pay the rates that they pay at the moment. We want to make sure that small businesses on the high street are better supported—that is the whole point of the reforms—so I can reassure him that it will not get worse for small businesses. It may be the Exchequer Secretary’s area, but I know that much, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to respond to that question. We look forward to further engagement with businesses over the coming months on delivering a business rates system fit for the future.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted again on her first Adjournment debate in the House—it is also the first Adjournment debate that I have responded to as a Minister—and thank her for raising this important issue. This Government have delivered the economic stability that high-street businesses need to thrive, and we are committed to delivering the business rates reforms that will support high streets up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]
Emma Reynolds ExcerptsWednesday 22nd January 2025
(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (31 Oct 2024)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill will enhance the UK’s resolution regime by giving the Bank of England a more flexible toolkit to respond to bank failures. The Bill creates a recapitalisation mechanism that ensures that certain costs of managing the failure of banking institutions do not fall to the taxpayer. It strengthens protections for public funds and financial stability, while supporting the competitiveness and growth of the UK financial sector by avoiding placing new up-front costs on the banking sector. It is therefore an important Bill that underpins this Government’s vision to promote growth and economic stability.
The policy in the Bill builds on the proposals set out in consultation by the previous Government. I thank the previous Government—I do not always do that, by the way—for the work they did with the Bank of England on the consultation and on the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK, back in March 2023. The Bill provides the Bank of England with greater flexibility to manage the failure of small banks, and thereby embeds lessons learned from the volatility in the UK banking sector in 2023, notably that arising from the failure of SVB UK. I hope, given their origins, that these proposals will be welcomed by hon. Members from across the House.
The resolution regime was created by the Banking Act 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis. It provides the Bank of England with a set of tools to manage the failure of financial institutions in a way that limits risks to financial stability, public funds and the UK economy. The regime was introduced in recognition of the global consensus that reforms were needed to end “too big to fail” and to ensure that, where necessary, financial institutions can be supported to fail in an orderly fashion. This regime has been developed and steadily added to by a series of successive governments over the past decade. That work has given the UK a robust regime that reflects relevant international standards and supports the UK’s role and reputation as a leader in financial regulation, enhancing confidence in our financial system and making the UK a more secure and attractive place in which to invest.
The resolution regime was last used to resolve Silicon Valley Bank UK, the UK subsidiary of the US firm that collapsed in March 2023. The Bank of England used its transfer powers under the Banking Act 2009 to effect the sale of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC. That delivered good outcomes for financial stability, customers and taxpayers. All the bank’s customers were able to continue accessing their bank accounts and other facilities, and all deposits remained safe, secure and accessible. The Bank of England achieved the continuity of banking services, and maintained public confidence in the stability of the UK financial system.
The case of Silicon Valley Bank UK demonstrated the effectiveness and robustness of the resolution regime. However, as would be appropriate following any bank failure, the Treasury, the Bank of England and their international counterparts reflected carefully following this period of banking sector volatility, and following that reflection, the Government concluded that there was a case for a targeted enhancement to give the Bank of England greater flexibility to manage the failure of smaller banks such as Silicon Valley Bank UK.
At this point, I should explain that the Bank of England generally expects to place failing small banks into insolvency under the bank insolvency procedure, because their failures are not generally expected to meet the conditions that must be satisfied for the Bank of England to exercise its resolution powers. One of those conditions is that winding up the bank would not achieve the resolution objectives to the same extent as they would be achieved through the use of the resolution powers. Those objectives include protecting UK financial stability, covered depositors and public funds. When a failing firm enters insolvency, its eligible depositors are paid out up to £85,000 each within seven days by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, with higher limits for temporary high balances. This compensation is funded initially through a levy on the banking sector, and then, to the extent possible, recovered from the estate of the failed firm.
As was seen in the case of the Silicon Valley Bank, it is the Government’s view that in some cases of small bank failure, the public interest and resolution objectives are better served by the use of the resolution powers than by placing the firm into insolvency. Smaller banks are not required to hold additional funds and liabilities that could be bailed in during a resolution, so in a case in which a small bank does need to be resolved, additional capital may be required to support a successful resolution. For example, funds may be required for the bank in resolution to meet the minimum capital requirements for authorisation, or to sustain market confidence. At present, these recapitalisation costs have to be borne by public funds. The Government believe that that situation should be avoided to protect taxpayers from bearing those costs, and I hope that the Opposition agree; we shall see very shortly. To that end, the Bill aims to strengthen the protections for public funds when a small bank is placed into resolution.
Overall, this is a prudent set of reforms to ensure that the resolution regime continues to effectively limit risks to financial stability and, indeed, to taxpayers. The Bill does not make widespread changes to a regime that is working well, and it is important to emphasise that the bank insolvency procedure will continue to play an important role in managing the failure of small banks. That said, the Bill reflects the Government’s belief that a targeted set of changes is needed to ensure that, if necessary, existing resolution powers can be applied to small banks to achieve good outcomes for financial stability, while also protecting taxpayers. It achieves that by introducing a new recapitalisation mechanism, which allows the Bank of England to use funds provided by the banking sector to cover certain costs associated with resolving a failing banking institution.
The Bill does four main things. First, it expands the statutory functions of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, giving the Bank of England the power to require the FSCS to provide it with funds to be used to support the resolution of a failing bank. Secondly, it allows the FSCS to recover the funds provided to the Bank by charging levies on the banking sector. This mirrors the arrangements for funding payouts to covered depositors in insolvency, with the exception of the treatment of credit unions, to which I will return. Thirdly, the Bill gives the Bank of England an express ability to require a bank in resolution to issue new shares, facilitating the use of industry funds to meet a failing bank’s recapitalisation costs. Finally, following constructive debate in the other place, the Bill sets out a number of accountability measures that apply when the Bank of England uses the recapitalisation mechanism.
The Bill consists of eight clauses to deliver those key components. Clause 1 inserts a new section into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which introduces the new mechanism. It allows the Bank of England to require the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to provide the Bank with funds when using its resolution powers to transfer a failing firm to a private sector purchaser or bridge bank. It sets out what these funds can be used for, namely to cover the costs of recapitalising the firm and the expenses of the Bank of England or “relevant persons” in taking the resolution action. “Relevant persons”, for this purpose, means the Treasury, or a bridge bank or asset management vehicle operated by the Bank of England. The clause also allows the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recover the funds provided through levies.
Clause 2 sets out the reporting requirements for the Bank of England when it uses the recapitalisation mechanism, added to the Bill by the Government in the other place. The Bank must report to the Chancellor on the use of the recapitalisation mechanism and the stabilisation option that it was used in connection with. The Treasury can specify the content and timing of these reports, although if a final report is not produced within three months, the Bank of England must produce an interim report within that three-month period. The Chancellor must lay all reports before Parliament, although the clause allows discretion to omit any information that it would not be in the public interest to publish.
Clause 3, added by the Government in the other place, requires the Bank of England to notify the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees in this House and the other place—the Treasury Committee in the House of Commons, and the Financial Services Regulations Committee in the House of Lords—as soon as reasonably practicable after using the mechanism. Clause 4 requires the Bank of England to reimburse the Financial Services Compensation Scheme for any funds it provides that were not needed. Clause 5, also added by the Government in the other place, states that the Treasury must include guidance on the contents of reports on use of the mechanism in the code of practice, a statutory document that the Treasury must publish and to which the Bank of England must have regard, which explains how the resolution regime is intended to work in practice.
Clauses 6 and 7 make several consequential amendments to reflect the introduction of the new mechanism. Clause 6 primarily ensures that existing provisions relating to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme apply to the new mechanism in the same way. The most substantive provision specifies that the FSCS cannot levy credit unions to recoup funds provided under this mechanism, and was added to the Bill before its introduction to Parliament in response to valid concerns raised by industry. In clause 7, which contains mostly technical consequential amendments, the most substantive change gives the Bank of England the power to require a failing firm to issue new shares. That will make it easier for the Bank of England to use the funds provided by the FSCS to recapitalise the firm, by using the funds to buy the new shares. Clause 8 deals with procedural matters, including the provision that the Treasury may make regulations to commence the provisions in the Bill. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for shepherding the Bill through its successful passage in the other place. As I have mentioned, the Government made a number of amendments to the Bill in the other place following constructive debate, feedback and engagement. They include the insertion of the requirements for the Bank of England to report to the Treasury and notify parliamentary committees. The Government also amended the Bill to ensure that there was clarity over whose expenses could be covered by funds provided through the mechanism. In addition, the Government published a number of important documents during the early stages of the Bill’s passage, including a draft update to their code of practice setting out how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice.
There remains one area of the Bill that will require the attention of this House, namely the question of the scope of the mechanism—that is, which firms the Bank of England can use the mechanism on to support their failure. This was heavily debated in the other place, and reflects concerns about the risk of the mechanism being used on a wide range of firms, with the potential for large levies as a consequence. Those concerns led to an amendment to the Bill, intended to exclude from the scope of the mechanism those banks that already hold the full set of equity and debt resources—the so-called MREL, or minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—necessary to manage their own failure. The intent was to limit the scope to banks that are not required to hold additional capital resources, or banks that have not yet raised the full amount of additional resources to fully support their own failure. As I have alluded to, the Government note and appreciate the concerns being raised on this point, but as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made clear during the Bill’s passage in the other place, the Government are clear that this Bill is primarily intended for smaller banks. My predecessor made a written statement to the House on 15 October to reiterate this policy position.
However, after careful reflection, the Government continue to believe that some flexibility should remain in the legislation on this point, in order to avoid constraining the Bank of England’s ability to use the mechanism in a highly uncertain crisis scenario. Narrowing the scope would constrain the Bank of England’s optionality, particularly where it might be necessary to supplement the bail-in of a firm’s own resources with additional capital resources. I note that this is considered an unlikely outcome, rather than a central case. Nevertheless, the Government consider it important to avoid constraining that optionality, given that the alternative may be to use public funds. Ultimately, we want to protect the taxpayer. The Government will therefore table an amendment in Committee to remove the constraint on the scope of the application of the new mechanism.
More broadly, I want to express my gratitude to the banking sector, with which the Government have engaged proactively and constructively both before and since the Bill was introduced. The Government appreciate the feedback from industry, and we have reflected on it carefully to ensure that the Bill delivers a proportionate reform. As alluded to earlier, in response to feedback from industry, the Government carved out credit unions from levy contributions to recoup funds provided by the financial services compensation scheme under the recapitalisation mechanism. That was deemed appropriate because credit unions are out of scope of the resolution powers. It would therefore be disproportionate to require them to contribute towards costs under the mechanism.
The Government have also sought to provide reassurances to industry on the impact of this Bill. For example, by modelling the mechanism on the existing funding framework for depositor payouts, industry will be liable to pay levies only after the point of failure, avoiding new up-front costs to firms. Alongside the Bill, the Government also published a cost-benefit analysis that sets out our general expectation that lifetime costs for levy payers will generally be lower under the mechanism outlined in the Bill, compared with insolvency. I note again the draft updates to the code of practice, which the Government have published to provide additional transparency to industry and Parliament on how the mechanism is expected to be used in practice.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I am enjoying listening to the Minister’s speech, and I am learning quite a lot. Will she do me and the House a favour by sharing her thoughts on how I can best describe the benefits of this Bill to the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme when I go home tonight? I am sure she knows far better than me.
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend flatters me. It is not that easy to explain in simple terms, but I will do my best. Essentially, if a small bank is in trouble, it is better for it not to go into insolvency but instead to go through resolution to protect its depositors. In the case of SVB, only 14% of deposits were covered by the financial services compensation scheme, because the scheme only covers deposits up to the £85,000 threshold. Had public funds been required to facilitate the sale of SVB to another purchaser—in this case it was HSBC, but it could have been another institution—it would have had recourse to public funds. We are seeking to avoid a situation in which taxpayers in all our constituencies are on the hook for the failures of small banks. Where a bank has high-quality assets, which was the case for SVB, we can avoid the insolvency situation and pay out to depositors who have deposits above the £85,000 threshold. That resolution would be funded by the financial services compensation scheme and ultimately the banks, which contribute to the scheme through a levy. I hope that answer helps my hon. Friend—I am sorry that it was a bit long.
Stability is at the heart of the Government’s agenda for economic growth, because when we do not have economic and financial stability, it is working people who pay the price. We have to bear in mind what we are seeking to do, which is ultimately to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to ensure that we do not have to have recourse to public funds.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, but can the Minister assure the House that, at all times, the aim of the Government is to minimise the liability of the taxpayer? Where losses have to be sustained, they should be borne first by the shareholders, secondly by the bondholders and perhaps thirdly, and regretfully, by the deposit holders. That should be the order in which losses are sustained.
Emma Reynolds
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who puts it very well. He will know that there was a different order in the case of Credit Suisse, but the then Government said at the time that that would not be their order of priority. We are seeking to protect the taxpayer in this Bill, and he is right: had there been a cost associated with the transfer of SVB, it would have fallen first to those people before falling to the taxpayer. If we pass this legislation, for which I hope there is cross-party support, we will avoid that eventuality, because if we follow the order of priority and get to the financial services compensation scheme, the cost will be paid through a levy on the banks in that scheme. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question.
The resolution regime is a critical source of stability when banks fail, because it ensures that public funds and taxpayer money are protected. This Bill delivers a proportionate and targeted enhancement to the resolution regime to ensure that it continues to provide that important stability. As I said at the start of this debate, it is therefore an important Bill that underpins the Government’s vision for economic growth, and I commend it to the House.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have no desire to detain the House for long, but I have some questions that I hope the Economic Secretary can address, continuing our conversation in the Delegated Legislation Committee earlier this week.
The Economic Secretary and I are both alumni of TheCityUK, so she will know that what financial services want most of all is certainty of regulation and decision making. They need to know that the playing field is level and predictable. While we are all patting ourselves on the back about Silicon Valley Bank, the consensus that everyone did a good job makes me slightly suspicious.
The Bank of England effectively made three decisions during the unravelling of Silicon Valley Bank that I want to put on the Economic Secretary’s desk for her to consider. Is more certainty required from the Bank of England on the triggering of those decisions?
First, the Bank of England denied Silicon Valley Bank short-term funding. SVB UK was solvent, as it would have to be as a UK subsidiary regulated by the Bank of England. It applied for £1.8 billion of short-term funding when it became clear that its parent company was in trouble. That funding was denied by the Bank of England, and I do not think there has ever been any significant examination of why the Bank took that decision.
Obviously, there was a run on Silicon Valley Bank, with depositors seeking to pull out their money, and the bank was unable to honour those withdrawals, which is why it applied for short-term funding. A possible alternative route could have been a temporary freeze on withdrawals and/or the provision of short-term funding, which could have allowed the bank to remain solvent in the UK. Understanding what triggered that decision, and how other banks in similar circumstances might be handled by the Bank of England in future, is key.
Secondly, as the shadow Minister said, the Bank of England initially decided to put Silicon Valley Bank UK into insolvency and rely on the £85,000 depositor guarantee and the £170,000 joint depositor guarantee. We do not know why the Bank changed its mind.
Emma Reynolds
I can tell I am going to enjoy discussing these matters with the right hon. Gentleman. I have looked into this since our exchange on Monday, and I want to clarify what happened on the Friday before the Monday in March 2023. The Bank of England issued a statement on the Friday evening saying that it intended to apply to the court to place SVB UK Ltd into a bank insolvency procedure, absent any meaningful further information. However, a buyer came forward over the weekend, which is what changed between the Friday and the Monday. It was judged to be both in the public interest and in the interest of SVB UK customers that this resolution on the Monday morning was preferable to the insolvency procedure that had been announced on the Friday.
Kit Malthouse
That is useful information about the Bank’s decision making. However, the Bank still decided to go for insolvency prior to a resolution mechanism. I find it hard to see that, within that 36-hour period, it had not canvassed whether there was a market for the bank. My point remains: if I were an investor or an overseas bank trying to establish and invest significant funds in a UK branch, I would like to understand why the Bank of England makes these decisions, and the criteria and parameters by which it is likely to make a decision either way. Then, of course, the final decision was taken to sell or transfer the bank to HSBC—for a minimal consideration, I think. I really want to understand what value was placed on that bank going to HSBC, as opposed to any of the other banks that might have been bidding for it.
At the heart of this is my worry about competition. When a bank is put in this resolution position, obviously it needs to move to another bank that has significant assets and can fulfil the rightful demands of its depositors to withdraw their funds. That will naturally be a bigger bank, and there is a possibility—although hopefully this will not happen, as we will not use resolution very often—that small, higher-risk challenger banks will find themselves unable to obtain short-term funding from the Bank of England because of their size, and will therefore be gobbled up by the leviathans of the banking system. Over time, there might be a natural move back towards where we were prior to all these challenger banks appearing—to having four or five massive banks that dominate the system in an uncompetitive way.
I am asking the Minister not necessarily to change the legislation, but to consider setting out in a code of conduct what consideration the Bank of England has to give to the competitive landscape when it is resolving a bank. When it transfers one small bank to another small bank as part of a resolution, for example, that wheel might be oiled with a bit of short-term funding, in the interests of maintaining that competitive landscape. The cost of that should not fall on the taxpayer; effectively, it should be a loan for repayment. One of the benefits, if you like, of the 2007-08 crash—one of the silver linings of that cloud—is that we have a much more diverse banking landscape than before. There was recognition that having these huge organisations that crash the entire global economy if they fail was dangerous for the western economy, and that a much more diverse landscape was therefore desirable. The problem with that, obviously, is that there is more inherent risk in those smaller banks. If there is more inherent risk, we are likely to see more resolution, and in time we may end up back where we were.
I support the Bill. I think that resolution is exactly the right way to go, and we should obviate the risk to the taxpayer. There are also negatives to the system, though, so I hope that the Minister, who I am sure will do the job with aplomb, will think carefully about the impact on the world of the Bank of England’s decision making and predictability; about what the Bank can do to provide transparency, whether through a code of conduct or indicators of practice; and about the impact of resolution on competition.
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
This Government are committed to tackling money laundering. Money laundering through cash-based high street businesses is a known issue, and the Treasury works closely with law enforcement agencies to monitor trends in criminality and ensure resources are deployed towards the most significant threats.
Bradley Thomas
Hard-working shopkeepers and entrepreneurs across the country, including in Bromsgrove and the villages, play by the rules and pay their taxes. What is the estimated loss of revenue to the Exchequer from money laundering in retail environments in towns and villages across the country, and what are the Government doing to crack down on this?
Emma Reynolds
It is right that we take a robust approach to money laundering, and we have a tailored approach to cash deposit limits to reflect the differences in needs and risk profiles across businesses’ customer bases. I am committed to working with the Financial Conduct Authority and others to ensure we strike the right balance—one that allows businesses to continue their operations but also ensures that we assess the risk posed by those who might be using their businesses to launder money.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
What additional support can the Government offer to Customs and Excise, local authorities and police forces in gathering supporting evidence that can then be provided to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs? High street money launderers are brazen fronts for significant criminal enterprises.
Emma Reynolds
We take this issue very seriously. The Treasury owns the money laundering regulations, but the FCA has a key role as a major supervisor, and we work very closely with the criminal enforcement agencies. Of course, those agencies are independent, but we are absolutely committed to clamping down on money laundering.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Neither the US Federal Reserve nor the EU Central Bank are engaged in active quantitative tightening, but the Bank of England is. The Bank of England is costing the public finances in the region of £13 billion a year as a result of a fire sale of UK Government bonds. Last time I spoke to the Chancellor about that, she said that that was because of the Bank of England’s operational independence, which we all value, but that is not a licence for impunity. What discussions will she have with the Bank of England about releasing UK Government debt in a way that benefits everybody in the UK?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
It is our view that it is absolutely right that the Bank of England has operational independence. That is in line with international standards and what is happening in jurisdictions around the world, including in the United States and the eurozone.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Recent developments in the UK investment trust sector have once again shone a light on the crucial role that retail investors play in our financial markets. In her Mansion House speech last November, the Chancellor rightly prioritised leveraging domestic pension capital to drive the Government’s economic growth mission. Does the Minister agree that greater retail participation in UK financial markets also supports growth and democratises wealth, and will she meet me to discuss how the Government can better support access to financial markets for individuals, including in my constituency?
Emma Reynolds
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, who is a near constituency neighbour. We absolutely agree that retail investment is crucial. I want more progress on the advice guidance boundary and targeted support. I will be working closely, in my new role, with the Financial Conduct Authority to take that forward.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Residents in my constituency will have been extremely concerned to read the news this morning that the Chancellor plans to announce next week the expansion of Heathrow. I invite her to tell us, on the Floor of the House this morning, yes or no: will the Government back expansion at Heathrow?
Draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris.
The draft order relates to the 2023 resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK. It confirms that the former shareholder of SVB UK, which was the Silicon Valley Bank US parent entity, is not entitled to compensation following the transfer of the bank’s shares to HSBC UK Bank plc. The order has already been approved in the House of Lords.
In early March 2023, SVB UK experienced severe financial distress, resulting in rapid deposit outflows. That crisis, originating from its US parent entity, quickly spread to its UK subsidiary. By Friday 10 March, the Bank of England, acting as the resolution authority, declared its intention to place SVB UK into a bank insolvency procedure, absent any meaningful new information. Over the subsequent weekend, a private sector purchaser was identified. On Monday 13 March, the Bank of England exercised its power under the Banking Act 2009 to transfer the shares of SVB UK to HSBC UK Bank plc. The action was taken following consultation, with the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, His Majesty’s Treasury and the Bank of England reaching the judgment that the resolution conditions set out in the Banking Act had been met.
The Banking Act requires HM Treasury to make a compensation scheme order when the private sector purchaser power is exercised. This order is a mechanism to establish in law what compensation, if any, is due to former shareholders of the resolved firm. The Bank of England undertook a provisional valuation when placing SVB UK into resolution. That valuation found that SVB UK’s shareholder would not have made any recoveries had the firm been placed into a bank insolvency procedure. The shares had no value at the point that the firm was transferred and therefore no compensation is due to SVB UK’s former shareholder. The Bank of England then commissioned an independent valuation of SVB UK, which confirmed that no compensation is due to the previous shareholder of SVB UK. The order before us today confirms in law the findings of those valuations: that the former shareholder of SVB UK is not due any compensation.
I thank all staff of the PRA and the Bank of England’s resolution directorate for the swift and effective action they took regarding SVB UK, and indeed officials and Ministers at HM Treasury at the time. They worked tirelessly over the course of that weekend to deliver a solution that protected financial stability and achieved the objectives of the special resolution regime. The resolution of SVB UK shows that the UK’s resolution regime works well, as well as the importance of the UK having the necessary tools to handle bank failures effectively. The transfer of the firm to HSBC UK was a good result for SVB UK’s customers, who retained access to their money and the banking services they relied on; for taxpayers, with the firm being stabilised without any use of taxpayer support; and indeed for the UK economy, with the UK’s vibrant technology and innovation sector protected from severe disruption.
The compensation scheme order for SVB UK is a necessary step to formalise and conclude the resolution process, and to confirm that no compensation is due to the former shareholder. This decision is based on thorough valuations and adheres to the legal framework established by the Banking Act 2009. I thank the Committee for its attention and welcome any questions that the shadow Minister or other hon. Members may have regarding this matter.
Emma Reynolds
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, for his kind words—we will be spending a lot of time together this week. I also thank him for what he said about shareholders and the principle of risk and return. We know that there is a correlation between the risk taken and the return due, but that does not always work out. Proportionate regulation encourages considered risk-taking, which we are in favour of; we want to see entrepreneurship in our economy. Maybe this is a more philosophical debate that we could have on another occasion, but I agree with a lot of what he said about shareholders providing scrutiny. We certainly should not criticise them for being shareholders, because we need good shareholders for the functioning of the economy.
Let me turn to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and attempt to answer all of his questions. Obviously, I was not in the Treasury that weekend—one of his colleagues was—so if he wants a very detailed description of those events, he probably should speak to the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith). That is my first recommendation.
Secondly, there is certainly no litigation in this case. It is for the Bank of England, as the independent regulator, to weigh up and balance the different trade-offs involved in this sort of decision making. I cannot speak for the Bank of England, but I point out to him that only 14% of deposits would have been covered by the financial services compensation scheme. He might think that that would have been a better eventuality.
Kit Malthouse
That is not what I am implying at all. In this instance, I think that resolution was the right thing to do. What I am saying is that the Bank of England’s first decision, on the Friday, was to go for an insolvency and only pay out 14% of the deposits. It was only after pressure was brought to bear on a supposedly independent bank over the weekend that the strategy was changed to a resolution and the bank was transferred to HSBC. In fact, the Bank of England issued a press release to the effect that it was putting the bank into the insolvency procedure, and then over the weekend changed its mind. I am asking about the integrity and quality of the Bank of England’s decision-making procedure, given that it initially proposed to do exactly what the Minister says should not have happened.
Emma Reynolds
I cannot speak for the independent Bank of England, so I gently suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he has questions or concerns about the timing of the issuing of a press release on the Friday in March 2023, he should convey them to the Bank of England.
I will take up the right hon. Gentleman’s recommendation to look into the issue more closely, but I also gently say to him that—due to the work of officials in the PRA, the Bank of England and indeed the Treasury—overall we had a good outcome, because by the Monday morning, before the markets opened, we had a smooth transfer from SVB UK into HSBC. My point is that in the end depositors were in a much better position on the Monday morning than they had been on the Friday; regardless of the choreography, we got to the right outcome in the end.
I think that there has been consideration of the resolution process, although not necessarily of the timing of the events mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, on Wednesday, myself, the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Wyre Forest—and other hon. Members here present will debate the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill on Second Reading. That Bill has already been through the Lords. It seeks to ensure that in cases such as this one, we are protecting taxpayers. Indeed, what was good about this case was that SVB UK was in a relatively good economic position, but I could envisage a situation where that was not the case, and we will discuss such issues on Wednesday.
I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Money and Pensions Service plays a vital role in supporting individuals to manage their money effectively. Its funding levels are regularly reviewed to reflect demand, inflation and evolving needs.
Ms Creasy
New research from the Centre for Responsible Credit shows that 7.5 million people in this country are going without the debt advice that they need. We are in a cost of living crisis, so services are severely stretched. The Money and Pensions Service underestimates need by excluding people who are behind with their bills. That means that the financial levy that it proposes is not what it needs to be. Since a third of those who need financial help borrow from buy now, pay later lenders, and given the delay in regulating those companies, will the Minister meet me to look at the funding model of the financial levy and what more we can do to ensure that those profiting from exploiting our constituents pay to repair the damage?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner on this issue. We are reforming buy now, pay later, as the Economic Secretary recently stated in answer to my hon. Friend in the House. The Government recognise the gap between those who need debt and those accessing it, which is why the Money and Pensions Service is exploring ways to improve accessibility, including through outreach initiatives. We continue to keep a close eye on its funding levels to ensure that they reflect demand.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Money and Pensions Service does tremendous work to support people in my constituency who come to surgeries in desperate need—particularly those facing crippling debt—as do organisations such as Christians Against Poverty. Would the Government consider putting more money behind the Money and Pensions Service, not just for staffing but for visibility and presence in local communities? Would they consider the proposal that others have made to make our post offices a shop window for Government services in our communities, including such advice?
Emma Reynolds
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Money and Pensions Service commissions other charities, particularly to work with hard-to-reach vulnerable people. We continue to review its funding and we keep a close eye on the evolving demand and need for its services.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Thanks to our steadfast commitment to the triple lock, more than 12 million pensioners will benefit from a 4.1% increase in their state pensions next year, and over the course of this Parliament they will be better off by £1,900. Pensioners also benefit from free bus passes, eye tests and prescriptions.
Dr Evans
In September the Government released statistics showing that one in five pension credit claims were not being processed within 50 days, and I raised that in a written parliamentary question, No. 5385. Part of the answer stated:
“The department has secured funding for additional staffing to improve processing times.”
Two months later, data has been released showing that the processing of one in four pension credit claims is now taking longer than 50 days. How much funding was given, will more be provided to try to move this forward, and what conversations is the Minister having with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the funding is spent properly, given that it is taxpayers’ money?
Emma Reynolds
I am a Minister in both the Treasury and the DWP, so I have conversations with officials about this all the time. We are absolutely determined that those who are eligible for pension credit should be aware that they can apply for it, given our big campaign to raise awareness—only last week we launched a TV campaign on the issue. We have also deployed an additional 500 staff to process those pension credit claims. Thanks to our campaign there has been a 145% increase in the number of claims, which is why the processing is taking a little longer, but we are absolutely focused on speeding it up and ensuring that those who are eligible receive the help they need.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Oral Answers to Questions
Emma Reynolds Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Department for Work and Pensions has deployed 500 additional staff to process pension credit applications as quickly as possible, and I encourage all pensioners who might be eligible to apply by 21 December. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that benefit can be backdated by three months, and can passport pensioners to other benefits.
Dr Evans
I am very grateful for the Minister’s answer. I put in a written question to find out how long this would take, and almost one in four people who apply for pension credit are waiting longer than 50 working days for their application to be picked up, which takes us past Christmas and into the new year. That is before the 150% increase in applications referred to in the data released by the Government, so although I am pleased to hear that there are 500 more staff, could we hear how much extra funding is going in immediately to make sure those applications are processed this side of Christmas? Otherwise, pensioners are really going to struggle.
Emma Reynolds
I am very pleased to say that there has been a 152% increase in the number of pensioners who are applying for pension credit. That is good news, and is a result of the pension credit awareness campaign that we have been running since early September. We are putting in place all the resources we can to process claims as quickly as possible.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
We on the Conservative Benches are deeply concerned about all those who will lose their winter fuel payments under Labour. Some pensioners will keep the winter fuel payment if they claim pension credit, but we know that some will not apply or will have difficulty applying. Can the Minister confirm how many people the Treasury assumes are eligible for pension credit but will not claim it, therefore losing their winter fuel payment, and what is the Treasury doing to close that gap?
Emma Reynolds
As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the estimates of how many people might be eligible for pension credit are an imperfect science—they are based on a survey. Means-testing what is a very complex benefit, as all means-tested benefits are, requires an assessment of not only people’s income but their savings; it is about pensioner household units, too, so it is a complex set of procedures. All I can say is that I am glad we are targeting support at those most in need, something that was outlined in the 2017 Conservative party manifesto, which stated:
“we will means-test Winter Fuel Payments, focusing assistance on the least well-off pensioners, who are most at risk of fuel poverty.”
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
As the newly appointed Treasury spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, this is my first opportunity to welcome the Chancellor and Ministers to their places. Notwithstanding that, on the winter fuel payment, the Government need to think again. I recently spoke with representatives of Citizens Advice in St Albans, who are deeply concerned that letters from the Department for Work and Pensions will be sent out only in December to people that it believes are eligible, meaning that many people may lose out. We have urged the Government to either reverse the cut and make it taxable or look at, for example, raising the pension credit limit. Could the Government confirm whether they are going to look again at any of the measures that we have suggested?
Emma Reynolds
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I reassure her that we are writing to all pensioners—I do not know where she got that misinformation from—about the change in policy. For the first time, we are also writing to all pensioners in receipt of housing benefit to encourage them to claim for pension credit.
We have also made a steadfast commitment to the triple lock, which will mean that the new full state pension will be worth around £1,700 more over this Parliament. We have extended the household support fund, which local authorities can use to help people who are on low incomes and struggling with their fuel bills. We have also ensured that the warm home discount scheme will provide £150 for low-income households, including pensioners.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
More than 12 million pensioners will be protected by this Government’s commitment to the triple lock, with the new full state pension expected to increase by around £1,700 over the course of this Parliament. Pensioners also benefit from free eye test, free NHS prescriptions and free bus passes.
Luke Taylor
We know that no impact assessment was carried out prior to the decision to cut the winter fuel payment, but was any consideration given to the burden that the daunting application form places on the elderly, and the extra burden on charities such as Age UK, which advise them on completing it? Evidence of that daunting burden is the 60% limit to uptake over the past decade. Will she work with her colleagues to simplify the application process, ease the burden on those who are losing the winter fuel payment, and help them receive the broad benefits that pension credit provides?
Mr Speaker
I think the Minister got it in the first two minutes, never mind the last three.
Emma Reynolds
The Government did an equality analysis on the change, which was published in September. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman take a look at it. It was such a long question that I have forgotten what he asked. On application forms—
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Eighty-two per cent of those who have seen Labour take away their winter fuel payment are either below the poverty line or within £55 a week of it. How can the Government justify this, when they are not even allowing a freedom of information request from the Financial Times to be responded to? They are hiding the figures from the people.
The Parliamentary Secretary, His Majesty’s Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
We are not hiding the figures. If I had had the chance, I would have said that 455,000 pensioners are paying the higher rate of tax and that 39,300 are paying the additional rate. Many wealthy pensioners have said to me that they do not need the winter fuel payment—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that, but there are a number of—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think the Minister has answered the question. I call Emma Foody.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Emma Reynolds
The Chancellor launched the landmark pensions review in July, which I am leading and which is looking at measures to drive more UK pension investment into the UK economy, boosting growth but also improving pension savers’ outcomes. I know that there is interest in this agenda across the House.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Countryside Alliance research shows that rural households spend up to £800 a year more on fuel than urban households, so further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), will the Chancellor protect rural communities in the Budget tomorrow?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman is urging me to comment on the Budget, but he will have to wait until tomorrow.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
This Government have inherited a Britain that is now the most unequal country in the G7 bar America. The UK’s 50 richest families own 50% of the country’s wealth, and our tax system exacerbates this inequality with unfair loopholes that benefit those who have wealth rather than those who go to work. What steps—