Financial Services: UK Economy

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who has opened this Backbench Business debate and is a fellow member of the Treasury Committee. He has given us a grand tour of a large and diverse sector of the economy that is, as he pointed out, very important. He also pointed out that it is affected by a range of issues at the moment.

The hon. Gentleman gave us some of his ideas on what should be happening post Brexit with some of the more complex of the EU directives that have been onshored—in particular, MiFID—which have been against the grain of how the UK financial services and insurance industries have always tended to work. He hinted at the philosophical difference between EU regulation in these areas and how the UK more traditionally did it; it is the difference between having principles-based regulation, which is not so specific, and the EU way of doing regulation, which tends to be so specific and puts a lot of those specifics in legislation. When I was in the Treasury and in the Department for Work and Pensions as Pensions Minister, it was a battle that we constantly had with the EU in the Council of Ministers and with the Commission.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

indicated assent.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I can see the Minister is nodding, possibly because he recognises some of those tensions, which always existed when we were in the EU.

When we were in the EU, because of the size of the influence of the UK financial services industry as part of that bloc, we had a very good and effective way of pulling at least a lot of the regulation that went on more towards our way of doing things. One of the worries I have post Brexit, which I suppose is a philosophical and practical worry, is that the EU will now go off and do a lot more of the things that we were able to persuade it not to do when we were a member. The divergence between how EU regulation works and how we may wish our future regulation of financial services to work is likely to grow larger.

It has not been a very friendly divorce to date, and there may well be implications to that, too, in terms of competition for business. We have seen some of that in the wholesale markets for euros and we will doubtless see more of it. The outcome of our way of leaving the EU will challenge some of the agreements that we came to and the influence we were able to have when we were inside the Council chambers, the European Parliament and the European Commission, rather than the situation we find ourselves in now. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, that can be an advantage, but it can also be a disadvantage. It is an opportunity, but there are also threats and issues that we have to deal with. We have a sharp disjunction with the recent past, after 40 years of that kind of influence, that we will have to deal with in the coming period. We have the inadequacies of the non-existent deal on financial services, which was part of the EU-UK so-called trade agreement, and those are already having an effect.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we are in a period of rapid regulatory change, which would have been the case regardless of whether we left the European Union. The fact that we have, and the fact that we have onshored all this regulatory machinery, means that we now have to start looking at how we wish to change all of it.

Even thinking about the sheer weight of work and oversight that will have to be done by the Treasury Committee is quite overwhelming, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged in the exchange we had during his speech. The Minister must go weak at the knees when he thinks of the detailed work that he will have to put in to deal with the onshoring in the aftermath of Brexit, and whether we want to move quickly or slowly to adapt the laws and regulations that we have imported.

Members of the Treasury Committee have also gone weak at the knees thinking about how they might have some oversight, because of the highly technical nature of much of that regulation. We certainly need to be significantly more tooled up than we have been if we are to have proper oversight of what the regulators are tasked with doing, what philosophical direction the Government wish to go in, and what the practical aspects of that method will mean for our financial services industry and, of course—they have not been mentioned much—for consumers in the UK and for financial stability.

We should not lose sight of those two basic reasons why we have to get regulation right. Consumer protection is a huge issue in financial services, as the hon. Gentleman touched on when he said that financial services are not always the most popular sector of our economy. Perhaps some of those who supply and form part of the industry ought to stop and think about why that is they case and do some self-reflection about it.

Clearly, financial stability is also crucial in an era when markets are becoming more rapid and more global. In the context of highly rapid technical change, financial stability becomes even more important, because innovation outruns the capacity of many regulators to keep up with what on earth is going on in some markets. Those two important issues have to underpin all regulation; the future of the entire financial services industry rests on them.

Regulatory change in a rapidly evolving situation with a lot of flux is inevitably difficult for those who participate in the market and for those who wish to regulate it. It is also difficult for those such as the Minister who want to see how it can be properly harnessed and allowed to be beneficial to our economy while being safe. It is a period of big uncertainty and flex. New technology has the capacity to change things and lead to innovation, some of which might be fantastic and some of which might be awful. That structural issue has hit us greatly through the innovations of digital currencies.

The systems that control financial services have to deal with the practical and philosophical issues that arise, such as whether digital coins are ever stable, what central banks ought to be doing to deal with that, and whether the wild west of Bitcoin and the rest should be left as a gambling thing on the side. Those markets can be volatile—the wild west—but the capacity of software such as open registers and blockchain, and their potential for transparency and in-time and open trading of all sorts of things, could be harnessed for good purposes as well as for the more nefarious ones that feature on the darker edges of the net. On top of that, the demands of climate change will cause a systemic change in the way that things are valued, priced and assessed for value.

That structural change will completely change the context in which the financial services industry has to exist. In the UK, which is one of the most open economies in the world and always has been, we know how important the financial services sector is, and not only to London as a global centre. In 2020, it was worth £164 billion to the UK economy, which is the third-largest sector by size in the OECD. That is 8.6% of economic output, half of which is generated in London but half of which is generated across our regions. Of the 1.1 million jobs, 91,000 are in my region of the north-west. As the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire pointed out, it is one of the few sectors where we have a healthy trade surplus—£46 billion in 2020. It is the fifth-largest economic sector in our economy, and all the more important for that.

As the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, the sector is important for taxation, with £28.8 billion in tax taken from it. According to PwC, it makes up £75.6 billion, or 10% of the total receipts. In the face of such change—technological, structural or the disjunction of Brexit—any Government would want to see how they could remake the environment in which the financial sector can operate and flourish to benefit and protect the sector so that it can benefit and protect our economy. We certainly all have a stake in ensuring that that is the case.

In that area of flux, we have to remember that the regulators, although they could be powerful, are struggling with an increasingly complex and fast-moving environment that they are not always geared up to deal with in detail or to keep on top of. We have seen the travails of the Financial Conduct Authority and how it manages the perimeter, and philosophically the view of caveat emptor—that the buyer should beware in all circumstances. When things go wrong, the reputation of the entire financial services sector is at stake, so it is a difficult balance.

The Financial Conduct Authority gave evidence to the Treasury Committee yesterday, some of which reflected how difficult it is to try to remake a regulator after scandals such as London Capital & Finance, at the same time as operating within all the extra complexity and uncertainty. It has a formidable task. I suspect that being chair of the FCA is one of those jobs where people are told that, if they do a stint, they will get the diplomatic equivalent of the Washington embassy as a reward. The current Governor of the Bank of England is one example of that.

The FCA needs to be strengthened. We as policy makers, and the Minister in particular, have to think about how it can practically do the job. The job cannot be so big and complex that it is undoable. Sometimes, the way that the FCA has to cope means it is difficult for it to achieve a balance and be given a job that it can sensibly do. We know there is a big turnover of staff at the FCA at the moment, and that there is workplace stress and unrest. We know that the head of the FCA is trying to transform that organisation into what he calls a lean organisation that can respond very quickly to what is going on in the market and in the areas it has to regulate. I am not convinced that it has that balance right yet, and I am not even convinced that that job can sensibly be done without more support.

I want to deal with a couple of areas that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire did not touch on. These are what I would call threats to the reputation of the financial services industry in this country. First, I want to talk about economic crime, which I think poses a threat to the entire sector and its integrity if it is allowed to get out of hand. We know that there are rising levels of economic crime, fraud and scams that have been turbocharged during the lockdown. The sector itself has survived covid and the lockdown pretty well so far, because it could manage remotely—it does a lot of its work remotely in the first place—but one of the things we have all seen, unfortunately, is the rise in fraud and scams. We have also seen, and perhaps it is inevitable when it is one of the biggest global centres of financial services, that London has attracted the attention of international criminals and fraudsters who wish to launder their money through cities like London. We know that, as a major financial centre, it is a target for all of these kinds of people.

The Intelligence and Security Committee, in its Russia report, which was suppressed for far too long and was finally published after the 2019 general election, said that London is considered the “laundromat” for corrupt money. We have seen that kind of magnet effect, which is extremely disturbing, and I do not think that we have yet really got a handle on it. There are regulatory failings, there are legislative failings with the structures we have to try to deal with this, and there are certainly enforcement failings of the laws that we do have.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

It is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government. It has been an extremely well-informed debate, and I have enjoyed listening to all the contributions. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for sponsoring the debate. They were absolutely right to point out that the financial services industry is critically important to the United Kingdom’s economy, and to champion the UK as an environment that ensures that the sector is able to retain its competitiveness on the world stage.

I discerned five themes as I listened to the debate: the response to the pandemic, the issue of levelling up, green finance, the context for our international relationships, and regulation, about which there have been a range of comments across the wholesale and retail sector.

I have been the Economic Secretary for nearly four years, and in that time I have come to recognise the vast economic contribution that the financial services industry makes to this country—we have heard a great deal about that today—but I have also observed the many hidden contributions that it has made, which have been particularly clear during the pandemic. On the frontline, bank staff have kept branches open and supported vulnerable customers at times that have been very worrying for them financially. In the back offices, people have rolled up their shirt sleeves and worked all hours with us and the regulators to deliver tens of billions of pounds of emergency loans. I have already thanked the industry publicly for what it has been doing, and I am delighted to do so again today at the Dispatch Box.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) mentioned the £100 million of loans and other support in his constituency, and that has been replicated across the country. The bounce back loans, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the forbearance measures were critical at what was a critical time for our country.

I recognise and acknowledge the sentiments about the financial services industry not always getting a good press. This is not just about banks, although they are critically important for the underpinning of lending to our economy. However, I think we should also recognise, as the Scottish National party speakers did, that the industry is not just about the square mile but about the whole United Kingdom. I visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) a few weeks ago to see the bank hub that is active there and informing the industry’s response to the challenge of access to cash.

In places such as Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Merseyside, this industry is critical. There is not an equitable distribution across every region, but there are hubs of real significance. Two thirds of people employed in the industry work outside London: 37,000 in Northern Ireland, 69,000 in Wales, and 153,000 in Scotland. I am proud that the Government have used that imperative to headquarter our new national infrastructure bank in Leeds and to establish our new economic campus in Darlington.

The sector has also made significant progress on diversity and inclusion, so that the very best people for the job have an equal opportunity to succeed, no matter what their race, gender or background might be. There is a lot more work to be done in that area, and I commend the incoming Lord Mayor of London for his championing of that agenda during his tenure.

I want to address some of the points raised by Members during the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) for his kind words, his focus on the importance of the regional agenda, and his challenge to ensure that we have opportunities across the regions. The opportunity to secure high-paid, high-value jobs beyond Wimbledon and across the United Kingdom is a real imperative. I draw his attention to the Kalifa review into FinTech that was published at the beginning of March, and to the money secured and announced in the Budget for the centre for financial innovation and technology, which will be a key driver of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) mentioned levelling up and also raised some specific concerns about debt advice. I draw his attention to the work we have done with the breathing space scheme, which went live in May. I recognise the uncertainty around the maps and the reprofiling of face-to-face and online debt advice. I am taking a close interest in that. We are also trying to innovate when it comes to no-interest loan schemes, which are at the proof of concept phase and could make a massive contribution to assisting many vulnerable people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) put a stark statistic before us when he said that more than 36% of his constituents worked in financial services and the broader legal and professional services sector. It is a critical sector for our economy. The financial services sector also has a crucial role to play in our response to climate change. The ambition is clear: we want the UK to be the best place in the world for green and sustainable investment. As a Government we have taken bold action in this area to transform the UK financial sector. That has involved introducing new economy-wide sustainability disclosure requirements for businesses, and the kick-starting of a green financing programme with two record-breaking sovereign green bonds: one for around £10 billion on 21 September and a further £6 billion on 21 October, achieving a “greenium”—a premium on what we would have gained from a non-green bond—of around 2.5 base points. We will not be complacent about this. We also need global action on green finance, and the Chancellor recently hosted the COP26 finance day, which saw financial firms with assets of over £130 trillion committing to net zero.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst also drew attention to the role of the City of London Corporation in green finance, and I absolutely endorse his recognition of its contribution and in particular that of Catherine McGuinness, who has been the policy lead through most of my tenure. She has done an excellent job, and her tenure comes to an end next spring. As I have said, the Lord Mayor is also committed to taking on his predecessor’s leadership in that area.

Looking ahead, it is important that we do not rest on our laurels, as the motion recognises. There are obviously strong competitive pressures in the industry, and it is my mission to help to deliver the Chancellor’s vision for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens across the UK. In his speech on 1 July, the Chancellor said that we should be proud that people around the world looked to this country for leadership, and we should be. We have an opportunity and a responsibility to lead the world on international standards, FinTech, green finance and much more.

When I took on this role in January 2018, the nature of the international relationship that the UK would have in financial services was uncertain. We have now left the EU institutional framework and, where it makes sense to do so, we are taking advantage of our new freedoms to refresh the UK’s position as the world’s pre-eminent financial centre. We are not deregulating, but we are looking at those international relationships. We have set out a clear, ambitious programme of work to broaden and deepen those relationships. We have signed trade agreements with Japan, Singapore, the European economic area and the European Free Trade Association, and reached agreements in principle on free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand.

I recognise that in many of these free trade agreements, financial services will not be as prominent because the regulator-to-regulator dialogues that exist on an ongoing basis are so instrumental in unblocking opportunities on both sides in financial services. The Swiss mutual recognition agreement, which we are negotiating at the moment, will be the most ambitious financial services agreement globally in both breadth and depth.

I recognise the uncertainty of the EU relationship. We have co-operated fully, and it will be for the EU to determine what sort of dynamic it wishes to have. I was pleased to visit my counterparts in Madrid last week, and I met several bank leaders over there. The warmth that exists towards the UK in financial services is clear, and I have recently had conversations with other bilateral partners.

We need a regulatory framework that is more agile, that avoids politicisation and that gives decision making to the independent and expert regulators. I take the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon on the need to ensure proper scrutiny of that autonomy. I recognise and appreciate the support for the secondary growth and competitiveness objective that we set out in the consultation, and it is now critical that we clarify in legislation how the responsibility of scrutinising those independent regulators will work. It will be for Parliament to determine how to examine the way in which those regulators meet the objectives we will set out in primary regulation.

Members mentioned a number of initiatives concerning the wholesale markets review. I see broad consensus on the vast majority of issues identified in the consultation document. We are talking about incremental changes informed by deep dialogue with industry.

On the prospectus regime review, I am delighted to say there was extensive support for the proposals in our recent consultation, and I look forward to pushing ahead with our reforms. We are taking forward the recommendations of the Kalifa review on FinTech. We must remain at the cutting edge of technology and innovation in financial services. I recognise that its application both to the regulators and to the financial market’s infrastructure will be significant.

We have responded to the call for evidence on insurance and Solvency II, and we are now working closely with the PRA to identify an optimal reform package across both the risk margin and the matching adjustment. This is complex work, but we are taking it forward with enthusiasm.

It seems to me that the House is largely in agreement on two things. The contribution of the financial services sector to the country is critical, but we cannot take it for granted, and I will never do so in my role. I am proud to be delivering on the Government’s vision for an open, green and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens across the United Kingdom.

I welcome the many varied and well-informed contributions this afternoon. I agree with the motion, and I encourage others to do the same. It would be remiss of me not to welcome the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) to her place as my shadow, and I look forward to discussing these matters with her in future.

Draft Solvency 2 (Group Supervision) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing as far as possible, in line with current Government guidelines and those of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give one another and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Members should send their speaking notes by email to [e-mail]. Similarly, any officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with the Minister.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Solvency 2 (Group Supervision) (Amendment) Regulations 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Rees. This instrument is being made to address deficiencies in retained EU law relating to the supervision of UK insurance groups under the insurance prudential regime known as solvency 2. The UK Government have made equivalence decisions that assess that the insurance group supervision regime in another country—a third country—is equivalent to the UK. To date, Bermuda, Switzerland and the European economic area countries have been determined to be equivalent to the UK for the purpose of insurance group supervision. The instrument will ensure that the UK Government’s equivalence decisions achieve in full the objective of avoiding unnecessary duplication of supervisory work.

The instrument affects UK insurance groups whose parent companies are domiciled in equivalent third countries. Such insurance groups are supervised at two levels: first, the UK insurance group level is supervised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and secondly, the ultimate parent group level, the so-called worldwide group, is supervised by the supervisory authority in the relevant third countries.

The instrument enables the PRA, when certain conditions are met, to defer to third-country supervisory authorities if the UK has determined that the third countries are equivalent for the purpose of insurance group supervision. The conditions apply where compliance by firms would be overly burdensome and where waiving the requirements would not adversely impact the PRA’s advancements of its objectives.

In that circumstance, the PRA may disapply or modify regulatory requirements, which amounts to issuing waivers to UK insurance groups. In effect, the waivers exempt those UK insurance groups from demonstrating to the PRA compliance with solvency 2 group supervision requirements at the UK sub-group level. That is in recognition of the fact that compliance at the UK sub-group level has already been supervised by virtue of being a subset of the ultimate group that is supervised by the equivalent third countries.

Pre-EU exit, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority issued guidelines to allow EEA supervisors to issue such waivers. Under such guidelines, the PRA could issue waivers to affected UK insurance groups pre-EU exit. However, those guidelines ceased to have effect in the UK following EU exit. Consequently, existing waivers are due to expire on 31 March 2022. The instrument confers on the PRA the power to issue new waivers.

The instrument brings advantages to UK insurance groups with a parent in an equivalent third country, to the PRA and to the third-country supervisory authorities. The advantages are reduced regulatory compliance cost for the insurance groups; reduced supervisory cost for the PRA; and reduced need for co-ordination between third-country supervisory authorities and the PRA where they are reviewing duplicative materials.

On 2 December 2021, in its 22nd report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee listed the instrument as an “instrument of interest”. In the report, the Committee noted the

“absence of a level playing field: while the UK has granted equivalence to the EU in relation to the supervision of insurance groups, the EU has not reciprocated.”

Although that is true, I urge the Committee not to conflate those two separate matters. Equivalence determinations are made by the UK and EU unilaterally. One decision is within the power of the UK Government and another is beyond the power of the UK Government. Where the UK Government have unilaterally determined equivalence, we have a duty to ensure that our decisions are meaningful and achieve their objectives in full. The instrument ensures that we do not undermine our own equivalence decisions with deficiencies in our domestic law.

Rejecting this instrument does not increase the probability of the EU reciprocating equivalence decision. Conversely, it would penalise UK insurance groups and our regulator by increasing regulatory compliance and supervisory cost.

To conclude, the Treasury has worked closely with the PRA in the drafting of the instrument. The Treasury has also engaged with the UK insurance industry through its industry body, the Association of British Insurers. The ABI has informed the Treasury that the industry welcomes the instrument and has no concerns with it. I hope the Committee has found my explanation useful and I commend the instrument to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I very much appreciate the comments of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson and I welcome her to her place this afternoon. I will try to address three or four points that she made about this regulation, and I will come on to the wider issue of equivalence and the broader Solvency 2 reform.

This statutory instrument just re-establishes the PRA’s power to exempt UK insurance groups from duplication. It affects 11 groups. If it were not done, that would mean an annual recurring cost of half a million pounds. The hon. Lady asked about the objectives and who would define them. The PRA has a statutory objective to take account of policyholder protections. That is part of its remit and something that it has an enduring and ongoing responsibility for.

The ongoing evaluation of prospective alternative countries is a matter for the PRA. The context here needs to be understood. We were completely aligned up till the end of the transition period. As a Government, we were very transparent about how we were approaching equivalence. Indeed, we made a number of determinations —I think 17 or 18 out of the 32—in November of last year. We complied fully with the EU and filled in 2,500 pages on equivalence. We also advanced a conversation around a regulatory dialogue and were ready for the memorandum of understanding to be signed. It is now a matter for the EU how it determines the way forward.

Both Opposition spokespeople spoke about the broader Solvency 2 reform. That is being looked at by the PRA and the Treasury, which are looking at the risk margin and the matching adjustment. We are looking at that closely with industry to determine the best way forward. That is completely distinct from this statutory instrument, but there is encouraging progress there.

This is not, though, a deregulatory move on the part of the UK. I think the whole Committee will understand that financial services is a dynamic industry where changes of regulation occur all the time, both on the EU side and here. This SI does not mean lower prudential standards. The PRA cannot issue waivers if by doing so it so adversely impacts the advancement of its objectives, which, as I said, are statutory ones of policyholder protection. The SI simply prevents a cliff edge that would otherwise happen on 1 April 2022. The hon. Member for Glenrothes asked whether the SI takes us back to the pre-Brexit position. The answer is no, it just restores the mechanism by which we can continue to grant equivalence.

I do not think there is too much else I can say to assist, but what we doing is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial. It will ensure that the UK’s equivalence decisions, which assess that the insurance group supervision regime in another country is equivalent to the UK—

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I thank him for the answers that he has provided to almost all of the questions I raised. I do not think he has yet covered the possible issue of UK insurance companies whose parent companies are headquartered outside the equivalent regulatory countries. Is that a significant issue? Is he aware of any UK companies that will still have to face duplicate regulation because their parent company is regulated somewhere else?

[John Glen]

Offhand, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a list of countries, but I am happy to look into matter and write to him if I can say something edifying. I do not want to complicate this anymore than I already may have done by my responses.

The instrument simply reduces the regulatory compliance cost for those affected insurance groups and reduces that supervisory cost for the PRA and equivalent third country supervisory authorities. There is nothing that I am trying to do here that represents a significant policy deviation, and I hope that my response has been sufficiently helpful to the Committee to allow the SI to be passed.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of the availability of (a) mortgages and (b) credit for self-employed people who utilised the Government’s covid-19 support schemes.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

Previous receipt of covid-19 support should not, in and of itself be a barrier to credit provided that the applicant meets the lender eligibility criteria. It remains important that lenders carry out checks to ensure that they do not lend to individuals in an unaffordable way.

[Mr Perkins]

I take the Minister’s point and I agree with what he is saying, but that is not the reality of what people are finding in my constituency. Business owners as diverse as a music teacher, a house renovator and an airport taxi driver have been told that the reason they cannot get a mortgage or other credit arrangements is that they have availed themselves of the Government’s schemes. Their businesses are up and running, and it is concerning if no assessment has been performed. Will the Minister get in touch with people at the high street banks and prevail upon them to ensure that businesses with a sustainable track record that simply used those schemes are not penalised for that reason?

[John Glen]

The Government have worked with the Financial Conduct Authority and we will continue to work with it and with credit agencies to ensure that those payment holidays have no impact on borrowers’ credit ratings. However, the checks that banks and financial institutions undertake need to reflect changes to individuals’ income. We do not seek to involve ourselves in commercial decisions. The mortgage lending rates to the self-employed are in line with those overall for the self-employed, but of course I will continue to work with the banks and financial institutions, and the regulators, to keep the situation under review.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

7. What fiscal assessment he has made of the potential merits of a national retrofit strategy for homes as part of the Government’s levelling-up agenda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the effect of inflation on living standards.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

The Government recognise that inflation is rising, and are closely monitoring the situation. The Bank of England is responsible for keeping inflation at its 2% target. As my colleagues mentioned earlier, we are working with international partners to tackle global supply chain disruption, and are taking targeted action worth more than £10 billion over the next five years to help people with the cost of living.

[Helen Hayes]

As food and energy bills are skyrocketing this winter, far too many of my constituents face the appalling choice between heating their homes and putting food on the table. Will the Minister therefore confirm how much more my constituents on average earnings will be paying in income tax and national insurance from next April, as a result of the Government’s decision to freeze the income tax personal allowance and to increase national insurance contributions?

[John Glen]

The Government very much recognise the challenge that people are facing, which is why we have introduced a range of interventions, including: the warm home discount; the household support fund, giving £500 million to local authorities to distribute; changes to the taper rate; and an increase in the national living wage. That range of interventions will help with the cost of living challenges, and will help many of the hon. Lady’s constituents.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Is it not the case that the dreadful seeds sown by years of ultra-cheap credit and quantitative easing are now bearing their awful fruit through inflation, the ultimate stealth tax?

[John Glen]

I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s characterisation of the causal relationship, but I recognise that the Bank of England continues to be responsible for monetary policy. My hon. Friend has always held distinct views that represent a particular school of economists, and I will continue to listen carefully to what he has to say to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Minister; welcome to the Front Bench, Tulip Siddiq.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

There is a cost of living crisis, temperatures are falling and Ministers are ignoring average households, who are struggling to pay enormous bills. Household energy bills have increased by more than £230 since last winter and are set to increase even more early next year, and we have recently seen higher tax receipts from energy bills. Will the Minister back Labour’s policy of using this money to cut VAT on people’s energy bills to zero over the next six months?

[John Glen]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Front Bench. I draw her attention to the answer that I just gave concerning the number of interventions that the Government have made, including the warm home discount and additional support through local authorities. Households in the lowest income decile receive on average more than £4 in public spending for every £1 that they pay in tax. The Government are acutely sensitised to the challenges that we face this winter.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

12. What assessment he has made of the effect on businesses of the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group guidance on pooled client bank accounts.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

The Joint Money Laundering Steering Group guidance helps firms to meet their obligations under the money laundering regulations. Banks should take measures to assess risks presented by pooled client accounts to ensure that the accounts are not abused for criminal purposes.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Yacht brokers have been using pooled client accounts for years to protect large sums of their clients’ money, without issue. Changes to the guidance have meant that banks are now closing some of these accounts, putting some of these professional, long-established businesses at risk. Will my hon. Friend meet me, UK Finance, and the Association of Brokers and Yacht Agents, to find a solution quickly? This is an important sector of the economy for some of our coastal communities, such as my constituency.

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend knows a lot about this matter and the industry, and I take her concerns very seriously. Although the Government will never insist on individual lending decisions and behaviours of banks, we will engage closely. I will meet her, and the Association of Brokers and Yacht Agents, and I will write to UK Finance to ensure that the guidance that is posted is being used effectively in the circumstances that she has raised.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Pandora papers show how overseas shell companies secretly buy up luxury property in the UK. In 2018, the Government published draft legislation for a new register of such entities to crack down on the use of UK property for money laundering. This is a matter of law and order. Ministers promised to deliver that register in 2021, yet for some reason, since the current Prime Minister took office, that commitment seems to have been abandoned. Will the Minister now, four years since the UK anti-corruption strategy was published, finally admit that the promise of delivering a register in 2021 has been broken, and will he give us a firm date by which the register will be in place?

[John Glen]

I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the financial action taskforce report in December 2018 that gave the UK the best ever evaluation in terms of anti-money laundering. There are two or three areas where we have taken action.

[James Murray]

Where is the register?

[John Glen]

The hon. Member keeps asking “Where is the register?” I will answer the question in a moment. What the Government have done is put in an additional £63 million in the last Budget to deal with Companies House reform, which is one of the areas. We have been the world’s leader in terms of common reporting standards. We were the first country, five years ago, to raise the standard in terms of transparency. We will implement that register when legislative time becomes available.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

Can the Chancellor confirm that, contrary to industry suggestions, the Government remain committed to legislating for access to cash as soon as possible?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

Absolutely, I can. We will legislate, regardless of what the industry brings forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that Viktor Fedotov, the secret co-owner of Aquind, has been implicated in a £72 million fraud scheme linked to Putin’s Russia. Can the Minister say what due diligence has been done on the project company and its owners, and if he and ministerial colleagues will protect our national infrastructure from these alleged fraudsters by stopping the disastrous project once and for all?

[John Glen]

The Government remain absolutely committed to protecting this country from illicit finance. We have been a leader in the global community, making this place the safest place to do business, and we will continue in that vein.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

A key way to support economic growth is to help level up our forgotten high streets, such as Eston Square, where the old precinct building is blocking key investment and preventing new businesses from moving in. When the Chancellor is next up in Teesside, will he come with me to Eston, and meet leaders at Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council to see what can be done to level up Eston Square?

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be aware of the considerable public unease about the proposed demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria. Will he therefore consider sympathetically the cross-party letter he has received from over 100 parliamentarians calling for a review of the law governing mutuals?

[John Glen]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have had considerable engagement on this subject. This is a matter for the Financial Conduct Authority, and we have discussed it. Obviously, members will now vote on the proposal. On the broader issue of how this sector is treated, I remain willing to engage with him on further changes and reforms that may help it in future.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Ministers will know of the importance of the Humber ports to the regional and national economy. Access to Immingham and Grimsby ports is in part via the A180, which has an old concrete surface that is crumbling and in need of urgent repair. This afternoon I will meet Highways England to discuss that. May I tell it that the Chancellor will fund those improvements?

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]

John Glen Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Over the past decade, the dormant assets scheme has released more than £800 million to tackle systemic social challenges and to support the communities that need help most. This Bill is estimated to unlock £880 million of additional funding to ensure that the dormant assets scheme can continue to support innovative, long-term programmes addressing some of our most pressing social and environmental challenges. The scheme is led by industry and backed by the Government. Its aim is to reunite owners with their financial assets; where that is not possible, the money supports vital social and environmental initiatives across the UK.

Consumer protection is at the heart of the scheme. Dormant assets remain the property of their owners, who can reclaim any money owed to them in full at any time. However, only a small percentage do so, meaning that the rest of the money lies dormant. The scheme responds to the imperative to put the money to better use.

The Bill marks the completion of a five-year review in collaboration with industry leaders, including an independent commission and a public consultation. The scheme’s success is down in no small part to the commitment and drive of the banks and building societies that have led the charge on unlocking dormant assets for the public good. However, it is only right that the scheme continues to grow and evolve.

Currently, only assets from dormant bank or building society accounts are eligible to be transferred into the dormant assets scheme. The Bill will enable Reclaim Fund Ltd, the scheme’s administrator, to accept a broader range of asset classes in the sectors of insurance and pensions, investment and wealth management, and securities. Of course, there could be even more dormant assets to unlock in future. The Bill will therefore introduce a new power to provide the flexibility to expand the scheme through regulations.

I stress that the four core principles that underpin the scheme—voluntary participation, reunification first, full restitution and the additionality principle—will remain unchanged by the Bill. The Bill will require the Secretary of State to

“carry out periodic reviews of…the operation of the dormant assets scheme and…any use made of the powers”

to extend the scheme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There are many worthwhile projects that local communities would like to bring forward. How can they feel that they are part of this project and gain advantage from dormant bank accounts?

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There will be a consultation; I or the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), will come to it later.

The Bill makes provision to reflect Reclaim Fund Ltd’s establishment as a Treasury non-departmental public body and names it as the scheme’s only authorised reclaim fund. In addition, the Bill includes a new power for the Treasury to designate additional authorised reclaim funds in future. To guarantee consumer protection, the Bill’s money resolution will enable the Government to cover the liability, in the form of a loan, for reclaims should any authorised reclaim fund face insolvency.

The Bill will amend the approach to distributing dormant assets funding in England, aligning it with the model used in the devolved Administrations, who have powers to focus funding through secondary legislation, provided that it is within the parameters of social or environmental purpose. In England, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act 2008 restricts the English portion of funding to youth financial inclusion and social investment. The Bill will enable the current restrictions to be removed from primary legislation and put into secondary legislation so that the scheme can respond to changing needs over time. The Bill will require the Secretary of State, before making an order, to publicly consult on the social and environmental focus of the English portion of funds. No changes to the existing restrictions can be made until and unless a new order is laid.

After 10 years of operation, it is right that we carefully consider how the scheme can deliver the greatest impact once it has been expanded.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

With the expansion in the amount of money and the number of areas subject to the scheme, there is a danger that we could end up swamping the economy in those areas. We therefore need to broaden out the scope of the good causes towards which the scheme can work.

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point—a legitimate point that will be raised in different ways across the country during the consultation, and one on which the Secretary of State will need to reflect in due course before an order is laid.

It is vital that we afford everyone a fair and open opportunity to have their say, so the Government plan to launch the first public consultation, which will last for at least 12 weeks after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Until we have launched the consultation and fully considered the responses, the Government are not prepared to make decisions or commitments on the ways in which future funds will be used in England. To do so would clearly undermine the validity and transparency of the consultation exercise.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Under the current legislation—the Charities Act 2011—urban regeneration is one of the areas that distributions are allowed to go into, but it is not clear whether they can go to, for example, a regional mutual bank. As my hon. Friend knows, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking is strongly in favour of that. Could the point be clarified in the Bill to facilitate a quicker move to fund those regional mutuals?

[John Glen]

In short, no; that will not feature on the face of the Bill. However, my hon. Friend is a doughty advocate for that cause, and I am sure he will make a hearty contribution to the consultation which will inform the Government’s response in respect of those future parameters.

Mindful of time and the need for contributions from so many Members on both sides of the House, I will end by reiterating that the Government are committed to supporting industry efforts to reunite more owners with lost money, and to provide a practical way for unclaimed and unwanted funds to be put to good use. The dormant assets scheme has achieved that, and we are determined to ensure that it continues to be a success. I hope that the Bill will command cross-party support this evening, and that we will be able to work together on expanding the scheme to unlock hundreds of millions of pounds more for good causes throughout the country in the years to come. I commend the Bill to the House.

Community Debt Advice Services

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond, Ms Bardell. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to speak in the debate on behalf of the Government.

I have listened intently and carefully to all seven Back-Bench speeches, which have revealed considerable understanding of the complexity of the service delivery in constituencies across this country. There has also been significant commentary around the context in which our constituents find themselves at this incredibly difficult time. I will endeavour to answer the specific concerns raised about the recommissioning exercise by the Money and Pensions Service in a few moments. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on the constructive tone and content of her speech, and on securing the debate.

I will begin with a deliberately unambiguous statement: the Government are committed to supporting the financial wellbeing of the most vulnerable in society, and to tackling problem debt. As reflected in the contributions to the debate, hon. Members will be well aware of the scale and breadth of the package that we put in place to protect jobs and livelihoods during the pandemic. It was one of the most comprehensive support packages in the world, but I recognise that it was never going to be comprehensive for every single need.

We recognise that individuals in problem debt require extra support to get their finances back on track, especially during this challenging and, to a degree, uncertain time. For that reason, we agreed to provide additional funding to the Money and Pensions Service for debt advice provision in England in 2020-21 and this financial year, on top of our wider coronavirus support package.

Several speeches referred to the difficulties in predicting demand and its distribution; indeed, MaPS acknowledged that, in terms of what it ended up needing for the 2020-21 financial year. That will always be a judgment call that it has to make very carefully, but the additional funding enabled the recruitment of more than 500 new debt advisers to provide additional debt advice capacity to meet the anticipated demand arising from the pandemic. Part of that additional funding was also allocated to providers to cover lost income from a key voluntary funding stream known as “fair share”.

I will say a little more about debt advice in a moment, but first I will highlight some of the things that the Government have done to help people in financial difficulty, because some speeches referred to that wider context. In May 2021, as I think the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) acknowledged, we launched the breathing space scheme, with cross-party support, where lenders agree to hold off with their fees and payment requests for 60 days. We have championed that scheme for many years and I am proud to see it up and running.

We will use similar principles of providing respite from bills and demands in the introduction of a statutory debt repayment plan, which is currently under development. Under that new plan, which will essentially give another mechanism for people to use when they are struggling with debt, people will enter formal agreements with creditors to repay their debts over a more manageable timeframe. We are obviously working very carefully with the sector to get that absolutely right.

As well as helping individuals to tackle problem debt, we are ensuring that they have access to fair and affordable credit. In the Budget, we introduced plans to provide £3.8 million for a pilot no-interest loans scheme, which Fair4All Finance is working with partners to design and deliver. It is my ambition, and that of the Government, that those loans will support people who are unable to access or afford existing forms of credit, and prevent them from falling into problem debt. During the debate, the uptick in buy now, pay later was mentioned. As I think we discussed in this Chamber last Tuesday afternoon, that is a priority for us as well, and I was grateful for the contributions from Members who were present.

The Treasury is working closely with the regulators and other Government Departments to help and protect people in financial difficulty. The Financial Conduct Authority regulates debt advisers, and recently published its consultation on debt packager firms. We believe that the FCA’s proposals will put a stop to bad practices in the sector and help to prevent consumer harm. We are also engaging closely with the Insolvency Service, which this summer raised the monetary eligibility limits for debt relief orders. Those changes will enable more people in financial difficulties to access a DRO and get a fresh start.

Let me turn to the specifics of MaPS’ debt advice commissioning exercise, which has occupied the lion’s share of time this morning. That exercise is an important step towards creating a better and more resilient debt advice sector. At the core of the contributions was a concern around the redistribution of face-to-face and online and other modes of delivery, and the outcome of the commissioning process. MaPS’ current commissioning model dates back many years, and some of its current grant agreements even predate its predecessor body, the Money Advice Service.

I listened carefully to the contributions on the complexity of the needs of individual constituents, and I respect the experience of the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), who have personal professional expertise in this area. It is important that we aim to achieve an outcome from the commissioning exercise that gives MaPS a better opportunity to manage performance and drive improvement, innovation and efficiency—improving the service that customers are offered and offering greater value for money, but not failing to recognise the complexity of the needs of those populations. That is in line with the Government’s wider approach on the funding that they give to charities, 80% of which is now on a contract basis.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle spoke of a number of concerns raised by the debt adviser community, individually, in representations to constituents and collectively through this process. A transition, such as the one proposed by MaPS, will require some changes and for the sector to adapt to them. The question is about to the pace and scale of those changes, which is the discussion that MaPS needs to resolve in the coming weeks. I am unable to comment on the specifics of the commissioning exercise. I do not run that, nor do my officials. There is a degree of commercial sensitivity around it.

This morning’s debate has put some detail on the nature of the concerns. I commit to ensuring that those concerns are represented fully to the leadership of MaPS as it undertakes this evaluation and moderation of the bids received. Once that is completed, MaPS will have a greater understanding of what the changes will mean to debt advice provision in England, including the proportion that will be delivered face to face. I can say that the Government have given MaPS a statutory duty to consider the needs of the most vulnerable.

Colleagues have raised issues of the unmet, or even undiagnosed, needs that come out of conversations, as well as case complexity and the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East about literacy and privacy. All funded services must be able to handle those complex cases, and MaPS needs to demonstrate that the commissioning exercise will achieve that, irrespective of the channel the cases come through.

[Yvonne Fovargue]

Although we are discussing the MaPS contract, we have also heard a lot about clients’ mental health problems. Has the Minister had any discussions with other agencies—for example, clinical commissioning groups in the area of health—about commissioning services, such as Financial Shield, which help those in debt and with other problems? That will save the health service money as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I have not personally, but I am happy to look into that. We have to look holistically at the range of new providers and what insights we can gain to improve the services offered. MaPS has factored the concern about sensitivity to the mode of delivery and the complexity of customers’ needs into its commissioning process by requiring bidders to engage in effective promotion and outreach to customers who will most benefit from the service.

[Emma Hardy]

One thing I am keen for MaPS to look at is the move towards three regional models. I made the point in my speech that smaller providers simply cannot bid for those large contracts. It appears it is by choice, although it is not—they cannot continue to access the contracts because they are too small. The move is from nine to three.

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. The significant concern that the outcome of the commissioning exercise will leave a smaller number of providers that are somewhat detached from local communities and specific needs must be addressed through the process. It would be undesirable for that detachment to lead to a lack of confidence in the new configuration, and MaPS will need to address that directly in how it responds.

When the outcome is secure, it is important that customers’ needs are diagnosed, that they have tailored support, and that providers collaborate to ensure that customers can be referred in a seamless manner when they can be better served by another service within the provision available. I recognise the point that that is not always possible if there is a level of comfort in a specific physical location. How that will be transferred efficiently needs to be looked at. MaPS has not dictated the channel through which advice needs to be provided, although it has required local provision in its regional lots. That is to allow bidders to innovate and compose a service that is aligned to MaPS’ requirements but is also informed by that intimate local knowledge, skills and experience.

A few people mentioned potential adviser redundancies. I will not be able to say anything more until bids are evaluated, and I think colleagues will understand that. However, we strongly encourage MaPS to take all reasonable steps to support the process and use its role as a market steward. That means supporting, where possible, any transfer of undertaking activities that the organisations involved may need to carry out to ensure continuity of employment for debt advisers.

[Karl Turner]

I thank the Minister for his incredibly constructive approach to the debate—we have all seen that. I do not expect an answer, but would he please, at least, consider asking MaPS to pause the process? We are all worried that we do not know the effects of the pandemic.

[John Glen]

I will come on to that in my final remarks. I want to give the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle a few minutes to speak, but I have a few more paragraphs, if I may.

Where transfer of undertakings regulation does not apply, MaPS must ensure that successful bidders are aware of, and connected with, any skilled advisers and project staff who might be made redundant so they can be considered for new roles. The Government acknowledge that wherever services are subject to commissioning, there may be elements of uncertainty and change for the sector, as is the case with any new policy. The Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions will ensure that the outcome of the MaPS evaluation and moderation exercise achieves value for money and meets the needs of vulnerable customers, in line with statutory requirements.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East about a pause, I will reflect carefully on that and talk to my officials. There has been a delay in the decision about what would come forward, last Friday. Clearly, this is an incredibly complex and delicate matter. We want to ensure that the new provision meets changes in consumer demand from a commissioning exercise that had not taken place yet under these conditions, but it must also take account of the fact that our experience of the last 18 months is distinct from anything experienced before. That does not mean that we will say that there will be no change, but it means that the change has to be carefully calibrated and justified on the basis of the very real concerns that have been raised. I thank hon. Members from across the Chamber for their insights, which will inform the way I take the matter forward.

Draft Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2021 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain social distancing as far as possible. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Members are also expected to do lateral flow tests twice a week before coming on to the parliamentary estate.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. The regulations, among other things, support the implementation of the remaining Basel III standards and the investment firms prudential regime. As hon. Members will recall, after the 2008 financial crisis, the international community worked together to create new banking standards known as the Basel III accords. As a G20 member, the UK is committed to implementing the standards. The Government have legislated through the Financial Services Act 2021 to enable the Prudential Regulation Authority to update the UK’s capital requirements regime to implement the remaining Basel accords, subject to an accountability framework.

In September, the House approved the Capital Requirements Regulation (Amendment) Regulations 2021 under the 2021 Act, which revoked the provisions in the UK capital requirements regulation necessary for the PRA to make these updates. The Act also enabled the Financial Conduct Authority to introduce the investment firms prudential regime, which is the UK’s new tailored prudential regime for FCA-regulated investment firms. The regime carves FCA-regulated investment firms out of the UK CRR. The combination of these two prudential packages requires consequential changes to the statute book, and the regulations ensure that the changes mesh appropriately and provide a complete functioning legal regime for firms. Many of the measures in the regulations therefore update references in existing legislation to the UK CRR so that they now relate to the new rules made by the PRA, known as the CRR rules.

On the use of the Basel powers under the 2021 Act, the regulations revoke the reporting and disclosure requirements for the leverage ratio, which is a capital backstop that prevents banks from becoming excessively leveraged. To reassure hon. Members, the PRA was already able to set leverage-based capital requirements through PRA rules. The UK leverage ratio framework has been and continues to be set by the Financial Policy Committee, which recently reviewed it in its entirety. The regulations also remove a legacy equivalence determination on article 132, tied to an equivalence regime that was revoked as part of the Capital Requirements Regulation (Amendment) Regulations 2021 earlier this year. That change is simply tidying-up.

The regulations protect the status quo of CRR permissions by ensuring that firms do not have to reapply for permissions where the relevant article of the UK CRR is revoked and replaced with PRA rules. The regulations then make updates to support the effective implementation of the IFPR across the statute book. Some are straightforward, such as removing terminology that is now defunct due to changes made by the FCA through its IFPR rules. Initial capital requirements will no longer be set for some firms at €730,000, so references to such firms need to be deleted. Other updates, of which there are two notable instances, are more substantive where appropriate. First, the regulations extend the securitisation regulation’s due diligence requirements to all FCA investment firms. That ensures that all FCA investment firms buying securitisations must conduct due diligence, thereby helping to safeguard the integrity of the UK securitisation market.

Secondly, the regulations remove Financial Conduct Authority investment firms from the UK resolution regime. This reflects the Government’s view that the FCA’s existing toolkit, along with the measures the FCA will implement in future through IFPR and the investment bank special administration regime are more appropriate ways of managing the failure of such firms. Indeed, FCA investment firms would currently use the existing rules in the first place and go into insolvency proceedings. Therefore, keeping them within the resolution regime only serves to create administrative costs for those firms, for no benefit.

The instrument also contains a savings provision and a transitional provision for the IFPR. It enables the FCA to continue to modify, revoke or amend IFPR-relevant technical standards, and allows for transitional provisions that support the functioning of the UK securitisation market by extending the existing risk retention requirements for one year, before they change once the IFPR is introduced. Risk retention ensures that firms retain an economic interest in a portion of the risk that is being sold on to investors.

Finally, the instrument addresses a small number of deficiencies arising from the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union that have been identified in the process of making these Basel and IFPR amendments. The Treasury has worked closely with the Bank of England, the PRA, the FCA, industry and, on the resolution change, the Banking Liaison Panel in drafting this instrument. I hope that I have shed light on some of the main elements of the instrument, and that hon. Members have found the explanation helpful. In short, it plays an important part in our work to build a financial system that is both responsive to the UK’s specific needs and mindful of our responsibilities to the wider world.

I must inform hon. Members that a correction slip has been issued in relation to a typographical error in this draft instrument. The error is an incorrect cross-reference in the title of regulation 38. However, the operative provisions in that regulation are correct, and as a result the error has no legal effect and hon. Members can be assured that the change is minor. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points, and congratulate him on his elevation to his new position. I am surprised, given the talent in the Opposition ranks, that he is still doubling up and wants to do this job as well, but I am delighted to see him here today, and hope that I will not have to see him here again. He raised six substantive points, which I am happy to go through. His characterisation of the draft regulations as being the grandchildren of the EU directives is reasonable and, as ever, puts things in a clear frame of reference.

First, the right hon. Gentleman asked me for some reassurance concerning the equivalent supervisory authority of the regime to deal with Basel III. I can totally reassure him that the authorities will ensure that they are not sub-equivalent to Basel. That means the Treasury working with the PRA and the FCA to place great importance on international standing, which will help to ensure that baseline level of resilience. As he acknowledges, the UK was critical in shaping the Basel standards, and we will continue, even in the new regime, to ensure that safety and soundness are at the core of our objectives.

The right hon. Gentleman’s second point related to the point made yesterday in the other place with respect to the “have regard to” amendments to the FS Act. Obviously, our amendment to include a requirement to have regard to the net zero carbon target will apply after 1 January 2022. That means that the PRA does not need to have regard to climate change considerations in making the Basel III rules, nor the FCA in making the IFPR rules for 1 January 2022. That was done to ensure that there was no delay in implementing the Basel III reforms and the IFPR, but it will be for the regulators to determine going forward how the new duty will operate in practice. The Government anticipate that it should function in much the same way as other obligations during the PRA’s implementation of Basel III standards, such as the need to have regard to the ability of firms to continue to provide finance to business and consumers in the United Kingdom. The key point is that, subsequent to the implementation agreed in the Act, they will have an ongoing obligation to have regard to these matters.

[Mr McFadden]

That sounds like quite an important omission. We do not need to go over the history of it, but the Government themselves tabled an amendment saying that the regulators had to have regard to our net zero obligations. If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that it does not apply to the draft regulations, which implement the Basel III regulations—the main international post-financial-crisis measure of regulating banks to ensure that the taxpayer is not on the hook in the future. Is that not quite an important omission from the green direction that both of us want to see for financial regulation?

[John Glen]

No, I do not think so. I think the Opposition accepted the Government’s amendment with respect to its provisions on the timescale. That should not withdraw the urgent need to implement the Basel standards and the consultation process, which would have to have been repeated should we have had to wait until 1 January. That does not mean to say that on an enduring basis that will not be a consideration that the PRA and the FCA will need to have regard to.

Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman’s asked about the ongoing discussions around MREL for challenger banks. The Bank of England is leading that review, and is currently considering the responses to its consultation. I have received a number of representations and discussed the matter with several challenger banks. I am grateful to the industry for its engagement on that review. The Bank will respond in due course, but I should not imagine that it will be too far away.

The right hon. Gentleman moved on to ask about the classification of systemic and non-systemic banks, and used the expression “too big to fail” around how those definitions will work. There is no attempt to somehow manipulate those classifications for deregulatory effect; it is simply the case that there are much smaller firms that do not have that systemic risk. Therefore, it would be appropriate, within the context of the rules and frameworks of the FCA, for them to be under its jurisdiction. The same will not be true of those that are larger, but there is no motivation behind that other than to find the most appropriate regulator to do the most appropriate regulation.

The right hon. Gentleman then asked about the capacity of the FCA to deal with the new obligations, in the context of the outcomes of some of the challenges that it faced after LC&F. I obviously keep in regular contact with the chief executive of the FCA; indeed, I am speaking to him tomorrow afternoon. There is no question of its resourcing being somehow challenged to take on that responsibility. We discussed the matter with the FCA at length prior to the passage of the Financial Services Act earlier this year. That is a matter for the FCA, but I am convinced that it is in a good place to continue.

The right hon. Gentleman then asked a broader question about competitiveness, and characterised the motivation of the Chancellor and the Government as to perhaps offer a deregulatory pathway to industry. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was able to attend the UK Finance dinner last week. I hope that he noted the emphasis that I placed in my speech on the need not to differentiate our position on deregulation. Indeed, the consultation on a secondary growth and competitiveness objective does not in any way undermine, or seek to undermine, the primacy of high regulatory standards, which have distinguished our regulators and financial system for a very long time.

I hope that that addresses the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, and I will conclude by briefly reiterating the purposes of the instrument. It enables the implementation of Basel III standards, which is key to the UK’s international standing. It updates and accounts for the new IFPR definitions and takes FCA investment firms out of the scope of the UK resolution regime to reflect the new proportionate IFPR regime. Finally, it irons out some of the wrinkles of existing EU regulation. The measures will give UK firms certainty over the final elements of the Basel III standards and IFPR regimes, and I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Financial Conduct Authority Mortgage Review

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2021 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

The issue of mortgage prisoners is one of my key priorities. I recognise the difficult position these borrowers are in and understand the stress that many experience as a result. I remain committed to examining what further can be done to assist borrowers and this is why I asked the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to conduct a review on mortgage prisoners to provide the further detail necessary to continue this important work. The Mortgage Prisoners Review [CP 576] has today been laid in Parliament.

The review identifies that there are now around 47,000 mortgage prisoners—these are borrowers who are up to date with payments, who are unable to switch, and who could potentially benefit from switching if they were eligible for a new deal. Most mortgage prisoner loans originate from prior to the financial crisis, when lending standards were looser, and this means that many affected borrowers struggle to switch as a result of not meeting post-financial crisis risk appetite.

The report is clear that the underlying reasons mortgage prisoners are unable to switch are complex, and it is therefore crucial to understand the facts and data around this issue in order to consider our approach. The FCA’s review provides important insight into the mortgage prisoner population which the Treasury will now examine to determine if any further practical and proportionate solutions can be found for affected borrowers who struggle to obtain a new mortgage deal.

More widely the review shows that the number of borrowers with inactive firms has materially decreased since the FCA last collected data in this area in 2019. This partly reflects the ability of many borrowers in closed books to switch to an active lender if they so choose. I would encourage all mortgage borrowers to examine their switching options to ensure they are on as competitive a rate as possible for their circumstances.

I am also encouraged to see that the interest rates paid by almost all borrowers in closed books are less than the rates they signed up to when they took out their mortgage, with a third paying at least 3.5 percentage points less.

However, it is clear that challenges remain in addressing this issue. While there is evidence that some mortgage prisoners have switched as a result of significant regulatory interventions made to date, it is also clear that the number of borrowers who have benefited is small. This new report also makes clear that the reasons borrowers struggle to switch are complex and varied, and that there are no simple solutions to increase the number of borrowers who are able to switch to better rates with active lenders.

Nevertheless, I remain committed to this issue, and am grateful for the work undertaken by the FCA on this review which provides the crucial insight necessary to consider any further action. I am also grateful to the industry partners who have committed to continue to work together on this issue and look forward to further engagement with them.



With the data from this review, the Treasury will now target our work to determine if there are any further practical and proportionate solutions for affected borrowers, including consideration of means through which we can help borrowers better position themselves to meet lender risk appetite. While I am approaching this further piece of work with appropriate ambition and optimism, I am also keen to manage borrower expectations by emphasising that any solutions tabled must avoid the potential for significant risk of moral hazard to consumers in the wider mortgage market or those who aspire to obtain a mortgage and must be value for money for the taxpayer. Any announcements on this will be made when the Treasury has had sufficient time to examine the review’s findings and consider any options available to address this complex issue.

Copies are available in the Vote Office and at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mortgage-prisoner-review.

Black Friday: Financial Products

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I associate myself with the remarks of a number of Members this afternoon concerning the death of Sir David Amess. He was a true blessing to this Parliament and a great character whom we all loved, and he will be sadly missed.

I have listened carefully to the various contributions this afternoon. As ever, this has been a very well-informed debate that I welcome very much. I pay particular tribute, as I have done previously, to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for securing a debate on this important matter. I will be sure to give her some time to have another go at me in the last few minutes of the debate. She set the scene very well, explaining the context that we face in the run-up to Christmas: the inducements to consumption and the apparent savings for consumers; the evolution in new forms of credit; the need for regulation, which I fully accept at the outset; the risks around the use of buy now, pay later becoming habit-forming; the behavioural shifts we are seeing in the market; and the need to really think about the context of borrowers’ behaviour as we bring forward this regulation. As ever, we were treated to some sophisticated analysis of the wider consumer credit challenges, and the issues with making more affordable credit available, from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I will address those points later.

It is important that we start this afternoon by understanding the Government’s position: we recognise that there is a potential risk to consumers from unregulated buy now, pay later products. I listened very carefully to the criticisms of the timeline, and over the next few minutes I will address the challenges we have encountered and present some of the solutions that we think may exist. It is extremely helpful for all parties to be represented in this debate; given the level of engagement from players in the market, there is a clear desire to address this significant area of concern in Parliament. There has been a massive explosion in this area, and it is important that we respond appropriately.

It is important to understand the nature of the risks. We should acknowledge that the use of buy now, pay later is growing rapidly: in fact, the number of transactions from the main providers using buy now, pay later more than tripled in 2020. That said, buy now, pay later is still estimated to have amounted to only 2% to 3% of the consumer credit market last year, and a recent study by the consultancy Bain & Company found that about 5% of online transaction volumes involved the use of buy now, pay later. I am very sensitive to the distribution of that additional use and the people who are increasingly reliant on buy now, pay later—that is something we must take account of—but it makes up a smaller proportion of the market than is sometimes believed. In addition, we have not seen substantial evidence of the risks that some have predicted materialising.

I will set the scene of the current state of regulation, because it certainly does not mean that the Government are turning a blind eye. A degree of regulation already provides protections for users of interest-free buy now, pay later products. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 make it a criminal offence for traders to give consumers misleading information. Firms are required to provide consumers with the information necessary to make informed decisions and not omit or hide material information that the average consumer needs. The FCA and the Competition and Markets Authority are designated enforcement bodies for these regulations. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that the contract terms of buy now, pay later providers must be transparent and not contain unfair terms. When promoting buy now, pay later products, firms must also comply with the rules set out in the UK advertising codes, and offending firms can be referred to trading standards and Ofcom.

Last year, the Advertising Standards Authority published formal guidance about buy now, pay later, setting out its expectations of both providers and retailers when they offer these services. The ASA also banned harmful buy now, pay later adverts, stating that future advertising must not irresponsibly encourage the use of a product, particularly

“by linking it with lifting or boosting mood”.

That is something that the hon. Member for Walthamstow has highlighted and campaigned on. Some buy now, pay later agreements are also already subject to some aspects of the financial promotions regime. The FCA uses its existing powers to protect buy now, pay later users, for example by scrutinising marketing materials of authorised firms and the way these products are promoted. The FCA has wider consumer protection powers that it can apply to unauthorised firms where it sees poor practice.

Effective Government oversight of financial services is not just about imposing rules; it is also about engaging with industry. In the case of the buy now, pay later sector, that is something we have done extensively—as have Members here today. We have seen that reflected in the actions of the largest firms, with many voluntarily introducing credit-worthiness checks and making information more transparent at checkout. However, I fully concede that that is not universal, and not every firm has moved in the right direction.

Looking ahead, the fact that we have seen some progress does not mean that we are complacent. As Members have noted, the Woolard review into the unsecured credit market, which was published in February this year, identified a number of potential risks. They include how buy now, pay later is promoted to consumers and presented as a payment option. Consumers are sometimes left with an absence of information about the product and the features of the credit agreement, and there are no requirements to undertake affordability and credit-worthiness checks. As has been pointed out, that is particularly important when multiple transactions are taken up with different buy now, pay later providers.

Following the publication of the Woolard review the Government announced, with support from the Opposition —I am grateful for their support—our intention to regulate these products. On 21 October, we published a consultation document that sets out the proposed approach to regulation, and that consultation is open until 6 January. Prior to the publication of the consultation, I had a lot of engagement with my officials. One of them is sitting here today, and I have spoken to a number of them this afternoon and numerous times before that. It is through a desire to get this right that we have taken time over it. There is no desire to go slow. I recognise that there is an urgency to this, and we have to move forward as quickly as we can. During the consultation period, the Government are engaging with representatives from consumer groups and industry—indeed, there is a workshop going on this afternoon—to ensure that the final approach to regulation strikes the right balance on consumer protections. Debates such as this help to inform that approach.

We want to expand the evidence base about the risk to consumers, and Members from across the Chamber have made a lot of points about that this afternoon. As I have said, the Government recognise the potential risks, and that has been supported in recent studies by consumer groups, such as Which?, Citizens Advice and others. However, the Government’s view is that as an interest-free product, buy now, pay later is inherently lower risk than products that charge interest. Used properly, it can be a way for consumers to manage their finances, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys mentioned, and to spread the cost of purchases—particularly when managing periods of higher household expenditure, such as Christmas, when Michael Bublé CDs are being purchased in the household of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). We should not forget that interest-free buy now, pay later offers, specifically around Black Friday, can allow consumers to take advantage of offers and discounts that they might not otherwise be able to benefit from.

Looking ahead, and in the context of the ongoing consultation, our overall objective is to ensure that buy now, pay later products can continue to be offered in a way that allows consumers to take advantage of the flexibility of the offer, while ensuring that the potential risks are managed. That means designing regulation that is proportionate to the level of risk and takes into account the way that the products are used.

For example, the Government believe that is it reasonable that buy now, pay later products use a bespoke approach to consumer disclosures, as well as to the form that the credit agreement must take. That is reflected in the proposals in the consultation, which I would characterise as not reluctant, but detailed, reflecting the fact that different issues come up with the evolution in the market and in the provision of different services. We cannot apply a single, one-size-fits-all approach. I see that the hon. Member for Walthamstow is adjusting her face mask, so I think she wants to intervene.

[Stella Creasy]

I thank the Minister for letting me intervene. He will understand that I am a little troubled because when the Woolard review said in February that there was an urgent need for regulation, we all agreed that urgency, as well as regulation, was a critical part of that conversation. Does he accept that in the absence of such regulation, one thing that we now need to tell people —it is on his list—is that they cannot go to the Financial Ombudsman Service if they feel they have been mis-sold a product? At the very least, in the intervening time before any regulation comes forward, the Government have a duty to ask retailers and companies to make that clear to people—a buyer beware warning. Does he at least accept that the Government should be doing that this Christmas?

[John Glen]

I fully accept the point that the hon. Lady makes, in that at the moment, those protections do not exist, and that is why we have to regulate appropriately and proportionately.

I want to say a bit more about what I think we should be doing. It is reasonable that buy now, pay later products use a bespoke approach to consumer disclosures, as well as to the form the credit agreement must take, and that is reflected in the consultation proposals. However, we need to think about the way that these products are used in the context of an online journey, the warnings that are inherently there during that journey and the fact that they are frequently used for much smaller sums than the traditional credit agreements for which these rules were originally developed.

When we think about how this facility is used, part of the challenge is the way additional payment smoothing mechanisms can inadvertently be sucked in. I do not want dental payment plans—essentially, for expenditure that is smoothed over 12 months—to incur an obligation to do some form of affordability check. Such issues make this more complex than it may have at first seemed.

I am determined that we get this right, that we recognise the distinct consumer risks that exist and that we bring forward regulation that deals with them. The Government’s view is that buy now, buy later information should not be long and detailed so that it becomes just another long set of terms and conditions, because frankly there is a significant risk that people would just make a cursory observation of such a list and tick the box. Instead, the information should be presented in a form that allows consumers to engage meaningfully, and I hope the hon. Member for Walthamstow would support that.

The Government also consider in the consultation whether the financial promotions regime, which already applies to a broad range of financial products, should be amended to ensure that all buy now, pay later promotions fall into that regime, further strengthening consumer protection. That would mean that all promotions made by merchants, such as a retailer, would have to be approved by an FCA-authorised firm. It is also important that consumers are lent to affordably. That is why the Government anticipate that the proportionate regulation of buy now, pay later would include the application of the FCA’s current rules on credit worthiness.

The Government recognise that these products are lower risk than other interest-bearing agreements and can help consumers to manage their finances. A study by Bain suggests that in 2020 consumers using buy now, pay later instead of credit cards in the UK saved £103 million in interest. I say that not to commend it over credit cards, but to recognise the segmentation of the credit market and the different behaviours and options that exist out there. That is why we believe it is right that regulation is balanced and proportionate, ensuring that customers are given the appropriate protections, without unduly limiting the availability and cost of useful financial products.

As hon. Members have mentioned, there is already precedent for imposing different regulatory requirements on different credit products, depending on the risk they pose. The Government and the FCA have previously implemented bespoke regulation for higher-risk products, such as the price cap rules for payday lenders and rent to own. Obviously, it would be difficult to apply that symmetrically in this context, but I sincerely welcome the hon. Lady’s comments later. Likewise, a more proportionate approach is right for buy now, pay later products, which we assess to be of a lower risk.

As new products enter the market, it is critical that the Government carefully consider not only how credit products are regulated, but where the boundaries of regulation should be. I note the concern that buy now, pay later may increasingly be used as a more mainstream form of credit, as has been mentioned this afternoon, and that even some banks are beginning to offer it.

Many different types of financial arrangement already make use of the same exemption, as I mentioned earlier, which currently allows interest-free buy now, pay later to operate outside consumer credit regulation—and has done so for decades. That includes arrangements used over many years by UK retailers to support the purchase of higher value items such as home furnishings and white goods, but also those arrangements which allow monthly payments for memberships to sports clubs, dental plans, other associations and certain invoicing arrangements.

In regulating buy now, pay later, we need to think carefully about all the arrangements that these changes could affect and avoid bringing activities into regulation which do not present the same risks to consumers. What is in play here is the cumulative application of the buy now, pay later product to a vulnerable group of consumers, and we need to make sure that that is where we focus the outcome. The Government must also ensure that their approach is future proof and cannot be gamed by firms operating on the margins of regulation. That is why we are engaging with consumer groups in detail to ensure that we get this right and capture the emerging products that are beginning to form.

I will give the hon. Lady several minutes to come back, but I want to mention personal debt more broadly, because it is a critical topic that comes into this discussion. I think everyone here has a desire to tackle problem debt and, as this afternoon has shown, we share an understanding of the complexity of the issue.

We need comprehensive solutions, which is why we are maintaining record levels of funding for free debt advice in England. The Money and Pensions Service this year has a budget of £96.4 million. We have launched the breathing space scheme, which gives a 60-day freedom from fees and payment requests. We are also expanding the availability of affordable credit, providing £96 million of dormant assets funding to Fair4All Finance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys talked about the Australian experience and the opportunity to cut and paste no-interest loan schemes. We have moved ahead with that, and I anticipate that it will move more quickly now. However, I want to be absolutely clear that it works in the UK context and can be scaled up quickly. I would rather it was on solid foundations, but I feel his frustration in my heart too.

I will sum up by reiterating that the Government’s view is that interest-free buy now, pay later has a legitimate role to play in the market, but its rapid growth throws up challenges. I think that consumers recognise that; they find it useful and easy to use. However, we are committed to getting regulation right and protecting consumers. The asymmetry of protections mentioned here needs to be addressed, but we want to do that without limiting the availability and cost of genuinely useful financial products.

We understand that there are concerns, which I have heard this afternoon, about the speed of the regulation. I will do this as quickly as I can, with my officials. We will report back to the House as quickly as possible, but I would welcome colleagues’ continued engagement in the weeks ahead. I recognise the risks that exist in the run-up to Christmas, and I acknowledge the legitimate warnings that the hon. Member for Walthamstow has raised.

Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Bill [Lords]

John Glen Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Many Members will have heard of LIBOR in the context of the manipulation scandals almost 10 years ago. The London interbank offered rate is the rate at which banks lend to each other in wholesale markets. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) knows too well, from his experience on the Parliamentary Committee on Banking Standards, a number of changes were made to the administration and governance of LIBOR as a result of that scandal.

Stringent and effective regulation means that LIBOR is now effectively supervised. However, it is no longer robust, as I will explain, and is due to be wound down. The Financial Conduct Authority has confirmed the process to wind down the LIBOR benchmark by the end of this year. Most contracts that reference LIBOR will have transitioned to a different rate before the end of 2021, in line with the guidance of the regulators, but there remain a proportion of contracts that will not have done so.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is comforting to hear that most of these contracts will have transitioned over. In the Lords, the Government estimated that the total value of those contracts was about £300 trillion, so even if a tiny percentage of them do not transition over, they could still represent a significant amount of money. Does the Minister have any indication of the number and value of contracts that he thinks will still need to be covered by this Bill—not as a percentage, but in actual pounds value?

[John Glen]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise figure. However, in my remarks now and further on, I will give an explanation of those that are excluded and therefore necessitate the creation of this synthetic rate. If he would just bear with me, I will get to the point, and he should feel free to intervene subsequently if he is not satisfied.

The Bill builds on the provisions of the Financial Services Act 2021, as I mentioned a moment ago. This provided the FCA with the powers to effectively oversee the cessation of a critical benchmark in a manner that protects consumers and minimises disruption to financial markets. If I may, I would like to take a few minutes to put the Bill into context.

LIBOR seeks to measure the cost that banks pay to borrow from each other in different currencies and over various time periods. It is calculated using data submitted by a panel of large banks to LIBOR’s administrator, which is the ICE Benchmark Administration. It is referenced in approximately $300 trillion of contracts globally. It is used in a huge volume and variety of contracts, including in derivatives markets, mortgages, consumer loans, structured products, money market instruments and fixed income products. For example, a simple loan contract may say that the interest payable is LIBOR plus 2%. In this example, LIBOR represents the cost to the lender of getting access to the money to lend it out, and the 2% represents the additional risk to the lender associated with making the loan.

Back in 2012, it emerged that LIBOR was being manipulated for financial gain. Following the subsequent Wheatley review, LIBOR came under the regulatory jurisdiction of the FCA in 2013. That led to significant improvements to the regulation and governance of LIBOR. However, in 2014 the G20’s Financial Stability Board, known as the FSB—not to be confused with the Federation of Small Businesses—declared that the continued use of such rates, including LIBOR, represented a potentially serious source of systemic risk. The FSB said that financial markets should voluntarily transition towards the use of more robust and sustainable alternatives. It reached that conclusion due to the structural decline in banks borrowing from each other through the unsecured wholesale lending market. That has meant in turn that LIBOR has become more and more reliant on expert judgments, rather than based on real transaction data. In other words, the market that this systemically important benchmark seeks to measure increasingly no longer exists, which underscores the fundamental need to transition away from LIBOR.

Since the FSB’s recommendation, the Government, the FCA and the Bank of England have worked together to support a market-led transition away from use of the LIBOR benchmark. Primarily, they have encouraged contract holders voluntarily to move to robust alternatives, in accordance with guidance from the FCA and the Bank of England, before the end of the year. At the end of the year, LIBOR’s panel banks will stop making the submissions to the administrator on which LIBOR is based. At that point it will therefore become unrepresentative, and the administrator will cease publishing in any setting where the FCA has not required continued publication using the synthetic methodology. The vast majority of contracts are expected to have transitioned away from LIBOR before that happens. For example, it is estimated that 97% of all sterling LIBOR referencing derivatives will have transitioned by the end of the year.

Despite extensive work and progress, there remains a category of contracts that face significant contractual barriers to moving away from LIBOR by the end of the year, and measures in the Financial Services Act 2021 sought to provide a safety net for those so-called tough legacy contracts. Through the Act, the Government granted the FCA powers to designate a critical benchmark as unrepresentative, if it determines that the benchmark is, or is at risk of becoming, unrepresentative—in other words, that it no longer accurately represents what it seeks to measure—and that it is not possible or desirable to restore its representativeness. The Act also provided the FCA with powers to compel the administrator of such a designated benchmark to continue to publish it for a temporary period of up to 10 years, to prohibit new use of the benchmark, and to require the administrator to change how the benchmark is calculated.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend the Minister for allowing me to intervene. He understands all this, and I understand some of it, but not much. I speak, however, as someone who is concerned. If we are moving away from LIBOR, is such a move likely to result in a greater cost to those who wish to borrow money?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, and I will come on to address the potential divergence, and the implications of the synthetic methodology for the existing rate that we are about to institute and protect in the Bill. In short, there is a lot of volatility in the market, and it is difficult to be fully confident in determining the exact quantum of any difference between where the synthetic rate would get to and the existing outgoing LIBOR rate based on the panel banks. I will address that point more substantively in further stages of the Bill.

In the case of LIBOR, the FCA has indicated that it will designate it using that provision in the Financial Services Act at the end of 2021, when the panel banks will cease making submissions to the administrator. The FCA has announced that it will use its powers to compel the continued publication of certain LIBOR settings, using a revised methodology referred to as “synthetic LIBOR”. The FCA has done that so that tough legacy contracts can continue to function, protecting against the market disruption that would arise were the benchmark to cease permanently at the end of this year with nothing in its place. It is important to emphasise that the synthetic rate is a temporary safety net that will be available for at most 10 years, and only for legacy contracts that have not been able to move away from LIBOR in time for the year end. It is not intended to replace LIBOR in the long-term, and new financial contracts will not be allowed to reference the synthetic rate.

The Bill provides important legal clarity for users of the synthetic LIBOR rate. Clause 1 provides explicitly that LIBOR referencing contracts can rely on synthetic LIBOR. That is covered in proposed new articles 23FA and 23FB which the Bill would insert into the benchmarks regulation. Specifically, where the FCA imposes a change in how the benchmark is calculated, such as a synthetic methodology, the Bill makes clear that references to the benchmark in contracts also include the benchmark in its synthetic form. In the case of LIBOR wind-down, where a contract says “LIBOR”, that should be read as referring to synthetic LIBOR, so that there is effective continuity. That will provide legal certainty for contracts that will continue to refer to LIBOR after the end of 2021.

The Bill also provides a narrow immunity for the administrator of a critical benchmark for action it is required to take by the FCA. That includes where it is required to change how a critical benchmark is calculated, such as a change in the benchmark’s methodology. That will protect the administrator from unmerited and vexatious legal claims. The Government have introduced this in the narrowest way possible. It does not protect the administrator to the extent that it can act with discretion; it protects it only to the extent that it is acting purely on a direction from the FCA. The Bill does not in any way change the ability to challenge the FCA, and its decisions on setting a synthetic methodology are subject to challenge on the usual public law grounds. That means that provision is enabled for legal challenge, but the existence of the synthetic rate as a continuity to LIBOR on the panel bank basis is not grounds for legal challenge.

The UK has one of the most open, innovative and dynamic financial services sectors in the world. The Bill reaffirms the Government’s commitment to protecting and promoting the UK’s financial services sector. As the home of LIBOR, the United Kingdom has a unique and crucial role to play in minimising global financial stability risks and disruption to financial systems from the wind-down of LIBOR. The Bill forms part of a significant programme of work by the Government and regulators to support the global market-led transition away from LIBOR, as indicated by the FSB decision in 2014. It supports the integrity of financial markets, and in doing so underlines our reputation as a custodian of a global financial centre.

The LIBOR transition is the responsibility of the FCA. It is important to remember that LIBOR is primarily the preserve of sophisticated financial operators, not retail investors. The vast majority of LIBOR contracts are derivatives. Those are sophisticated financial products, the vast majority of which will transition away from LIBOR voluntarily. Synthetic LIBOR will be used only by a limited set of contracts and as a last resort. The market-led, voluntary transition of contracts away from LIBOR to robust alternative rates has been ongoing for years, and the success of that transition means that the vast majority of contracts will not need to use the synthetic rate at all. Where synthetic LIBOR is used in contracts, it is appropriate that the FCA takes technical decisions on the methodology. Indeed, our regulatory system often sees independent bodies empowered to produce calculations that reflect and influence economic reality, such as the Bank of England setting base rates.

A question raised on Second Reading from the Opposition Benches in the other place concerned whether the Government would consider giving compensation to consumers who lose out from synthetic LIBOR—that echoes the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). We do not know at this stage what the difference will be between panel bank LIBOR and synthetic LIBOR on the day synthetic comes in, but it is clear that any change will be well within the range of change in the rate that could reasonably be expected, based on what LIBOR has been historically.

The replacement rate is based on a five-year average, so in the medium term consumers should enjoy similar returns, but with less risk of day-to-day changes in how their rate is calculated. It is therefore not at all clear that consumers will lose out from this change, or that there is a case for compensating the subset of consumers affected. The Government would not compensate mortgage holders for a change in the Bank rate, for example.

There are two issues here. There is the difficulty in determining what that quantum of difference could mean, because there is an evolving move off the LIBOR rate even at this stage. We also have the situation where, in essence, such rates and benchmarks are used in different ways. Mortgage holders would have the opportunity to go their provider and ask to move another rate, for example the Bank rate.

I reassure the House that consumer interests have been factored into all decisions relating to LIBOR wind-down. In particular, the FCA has considered how to address concerns that the synthetic methodology may result in a rate which is higher than the current LIBOR rate. The FCA has taken a rigorous and careful approach to making the decision on the synthetic methodology, resulting in a decision that is entirely in line with the global consensus, among both industry and regulators internationally. This has been a careful and deliberate process, and I commend both my officials and the professionals at the FCA for the work they have undertaken.

The FCA’s synthetic rate will seek to provide a reasonable and fair approximation of what LIBOR would have been had it continued to be based on panel bank contributions, while removing a major factor in the volatility of the rate. That is to the benefit of parties to contracts referencing LIBOR, who will no longer be exposed to perceived changes in bank creditworthiness or liquidity conditions in wholesale funding markets. The alternative is having no rate at all, or being put on an unsuitable fall-back rate that may well be designed for a different situation, such as a short-term problem with publishing LIBOR. The Bill supports the wind-down process by ensuring that contracts will remain able to function if they are not able to transition to an alternative rate in time.

The Government have worked at pace to develop this legislation, carefully considering responses to the consultation and the complex range of contracts that reference critical benchmarks. As I have said, the FCA has confirmed the process to put in place a synthetic methodology by the end of this year. The Government will continue to engage with regulators to ensure a smooth transition.

I want to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) in his intervention on the number of mortgage holders. There is some speculation over how many mortgage holders will be affected. Some estimates say it could be 200,000, or 1.8% of the mortgages held in the UK, about half of which would be buy-to-let mortgages and the other half residential mortgages. However, the estimates I have received from industry suggest it would be significantly less than that, and a diminishing number. I think that that is the best I can give the hon. Gentleman.

I hope that I have provided the House with the background to the Bill, an explanation of its provisions and an update on the broader work being undertaken by regulators on the LIBOR transition, and that we can debate the provisions in the Bill in a constructive manner and deliver this vital legislation.

I will conclude by recognising that this is an unusually complex and technical Bill. I would not want to be in any way patronising to the House, but I want to be open to questions on it at the next stage. However, I hope I have satisfied the House in explaining the principles and narrative the Government have around this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I want to address thoroughly all the points raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) about legal certainty, the temporary nature of this provision, and concerns about what will happen to the population of mortgage holders.

This is clearly a technical Bill. The Government are taking clear action to ensure that contracts that make reference to LIBOR, and that cannot transition before the end of the year, can continue to function. It is vital that the Government take the necessary steps to make the wind-down of LIBOR as smooth and orderly as possible, given the number of contracts that refer to it.

I was asked why people are on LIBOR mortgages. Customers who hold LIBOR-referencing mortgages are, and should continue to be, encouraged to speak to their lender to switch to an alternative rate. The FCA has been very clear with lenders that they must be able to demonstrate that they have fulfilled their duty to treat customers fairly where they transition them to a replacement rate. The Bill will not do anything to restrict consumers’ ability to bring mis-selling claims if they arise.

Let me address synthetic methodology—a term that refers to the methodology that the FCA would impose on the administrator to provide for the continuity of a LIBOR-setting function for the benefit of these tough legacy contracts. The hon. Member for Glenrothes cited the figure of £472 billion, which was the FCA’s estimate on 29 September. The synthetic methodology will seek to replicate, as far as possible, the economic outcomes that would have been achieved under LIBOR’s panel bank methodology, but without the need for panel bank submissions.

The FCA has always made it clear, however, that the synthetic methodology will not be representative of the underlying economic reality that LIBOR seeks to measure. Parties to contracts and agreements that make reference to the benchmark should seek to transition to suitable alternative reference rates where possible. That process will continue. There is a lot of speculation about the numbers, but it is impossible to verify them at this stage.

Reference has been made to the differences in rate between panel bank LIBOR and synthetic LIBOR. We have given responsibility for the synthetic rate methodology to the FCA in consequence of the Financial Services Act. Its approach will provide a fair and reasonable approximation of what LIBOR would have been if it had continued to be calculated under the previous panel bank methodology, while removing a large factor in the rate’s volatility. That will be to the benefit of those who have contracts that refer to LIBOR.

It is important to note that, even in the past few weeks, the LIBOR rate has been volatile. There have been some days when the synthetic methodology would have produced a lower rate than panel bank LIBOR, and other days when it would have been slightly higher. That illustrates clearly that it is not sensible to speculate about a change in the rate on day one of the change in methodology. It is impossible, really, to create an enduring and certain difference.

Given the interest in how the rate works, let me explain that sterling synthetic LIBOR will be calculated using SONIA—the sterling overnight index average—with the addition of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association five-year median credit spread. ISDA, the trade association, has played an important role in consulting the market to arrive at consensus on key elements of the LIBOR transition.

Let me briefly address the concern about how we got to this point. There was iterative consultation as widely as possible with the industry to develop consensus. As for the question of why the legislation was needed and whether we will need to do it again, this provision was based on legal advice and is intended to address concerns raised by industry about the robustness of the synthetic methodology. The methodology involves a five-year median for the credit spread, which was selected following that industry consultation, to avoid manipulation. It is important to remember that LIBOR is a forward-looking interest rate benchmark, and to replicate its economics the synthetic methodology will be calculated using the SONIA term rate.

The issue of the 12 base points was raised. The synthetic LIBOR will be 12 points higher than SONIA, not LIBOR. The difference between LIBOR and synthetic LIBOR will depend on the LIBOR and SONIA rates on the relevant day. Again, it is impossible to fully verify and quantify the difference, in terms of those that are not rolled off to another rate and the way in which the rates will perform in reality.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East referred to what is commonly known as the “safe harbour” provision. Some industry stakeholders have called for an express legal safe harbour like that put in place by the New York legislature. The Bill makes clear that references in contracts to a critical benchmark include the benchmark in its synthetic form. Furthermore, by providing in the Bill that contracts are to be interpreted as having always provided for the synthetic form of the benchmark to be used once the benchmark existed in that form, the Government have sought to address the risk of a party’s arguing that the use of the synthetic benchmark constitutes a material change to a contract, or even that it has frustrated the purpose of the contract.

It is the Government’s view that this Bill comprehensively addresses the risk of legal uncertainty in a proportionate way, while not interfering with other valid claims. We considered approaches taken in other jurisdictions, notably New York, but as a matter of policy the Government do not think it would be appropriate or proportionate to prevent parties’ ability to seek legal redress via the courts for other issues that may arise under affected contracts. A contract could be entered into and there could be a legal dispute over how it had come about, separate from the issue of the LIBOR dependency. We thought that this was the appropriate way to proceed, because the Bill was never about withdrawing the legal rights of individuals.

This is an important Bill. Now that the FCA has confirmed the process to wind down LIBOR by the end of this year, the Government are committed to having this legislation in place to mitigate the residual risk of litigation and disruption resulting from the LIBOR wind-down in the UK. We believe that it is vital to the protection of consumers and the integrity of UK markets.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Critical Benchmarks (References and Administrators’ Liability) Bill [Lords]

John Glen Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Thursday 18th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am grateful to you for being in the Chair at this point.

I realise that a number of these provisions have already been considered on Second Reading, but I am keen to explain the clauses in turn. Owing to their technical nature, I will explain them paragraph by paragraph at times. I hope that the House will bear with me.

As I said on Second Reading, the Bill provides important legal certainty for contracts that will rely on LIBOR after the end of this year. All its provisions deal with how a benchmark is treated in contracts once it has been designated an article 23A benchmark under the benchmarks regulation. The Financial Conduct Authority has power to make this designation when a critical benchmark is unrepresentative, or at risk of becoming unrepresentative, of the market that it seeks to measure. For LIBOR this will happen at the end of this year when the panel banks stop making their contributions. At that point, the FCA will ensure that LIBOR will continue to be published, using the synthetic methodology that we have already discussed.

In describing the purpose and effect of the clauses, I will use LIBOR as an example because it is currently the only benchmark to be designated under article 23A, but the provisions will also apply in future to any critical benchmark designated an article 23A benchmark by the FCA, although none is envisaged at this point.

Clause 1 means that LIBOR referencing contracts can rely on synthetic LIBOR. The clause inserts two new articles, article 23FA and article 23FB, into the benchmarks regulation. They supplement the legislative framework introduced by the Financial Services Act 2021 to provide for the orderly wind-down of a critical benchmark. Article 23FA clarifies how references to an article 23A benchmark should be interpreted in contracts and arrangements. Specifically, it provides that when the FCA designates a benchmark under article 23A and imposes a change in how the benchmark is determined, contractual references to the benchmark should be interpreted as including the benchmark as it exists after the exercise of the FCA’s powers. This is called “contractual continuity”.

For example, where LIBOR settings are designated under article 23A of the benchmarks regulation, this article would provide that contractual references to LIBOR should be interpreted as including synthetic LIBOR.

Article 23FA also sets out how contractual continuity will work in practice. It provides that this interpretation applies to all references to the benchmark in contracts or other arrangements, including references that do not refer to the benchmark by name but rather describe it, for example by reference to the economic or market reality that it intends to measure. It also applies where the parties were treating a reference in a contract as a reference to that benchmark immediately before the article 23A designation. That will ensure that any legal uncertainty is minimised, even when the contract does not explicitly use the name “LIBOR”, or includes a reference to LIBOR that is out of date. Finally, it is formally retrospective, in that it also provides that the contract is to be treated as having always provided for the reference to the benchmark to be interpreted in this way once the synthetic benchmark was introduced.

In the Government’s view, for contracts that continue to refer to LIBOR, these provisions will comprehensively address the risk that parties might successfully dispute the use of synthetic LIBOR to calculate payments after the end of this year. They do so in a proportionate way while not interfering with other valid claims. The clause does not introduce a so-called safe harbour, as has been introduced in New York. The Government considered that approach and, as I said, concluded that it would not be appropriate. However, the clause does not prevent parties’ ability to seek legal redress via the courts for other matters.

I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraphs 6 and 7 of article 23FA, which provides that the Bill does not create a basis for new claims concerning actions by the parties in relation to the formation, variation or operation of the contract prior to the change to a synthetic methodology. That should ensure that if, for example, a misrepresentation claim were brought in relation to statements made before a contract was entered into, the claim is considered according to the reality at the time when the statements were made, not in the light of the Bill’s impact on the contract. It would also not be reasonable or proportionate for the Bill to extinguish existing legal claims. Paragraph 7 therefore ensures that article 23FA does not extinguish existing causes of action. Any claim that could have been brought prior to the article 23A designation of the benchmark can therefore still be brought regardless of the Bill. For example, a mis-selling claim brought on the basis that a lender had misrepresented LIBOR to the customer could still be brought and judged according to the situation at the relevant time.

I turn to article 23FB, which introduces further provisions necessary to provide legal certainty to parties to contracts or arrangements that reference an article 23A benchmark. It is designed to avoid unnecessary interference in contracts where parties to a contract have already agreed what should happen in the event that a benchmark is designated under article 23A. This new article is primarily concerned with how the contractual continuity provision will operate in contracts that already have fall-back provisions—that is, provisions that provide for the contract to operate by reference to something other than LIBOR, or to terminate in particular circumstances.

The new article provides that article 23FA does not apply if the contract expressly disapplies it or expressly provides that the reference to the benchmark is not to include the benchmark in its synthetic form. It also provides that article 23FA does not override the operation of contractual fall-back provisions, many of which are designed to cater for the wind-down of the benchmark. For example, a fall-back in a contract that is triggered by LIBOR becoming unrepresentative will not be affected by the Bill. However, article 23FB is also clear that the designation of the benchmark under article 23A, or the imposition of a synthetic methodology, will not trigger fallbacks designed for the cessation or unavailability of a benchmark. That is because the benchmark continues to exist and be available in its synthetic form, so it has not ceased.

Concern about inappropriate cessation fall-backs that were designed with only a temporary unavailability of LIBOR in mind was one of the drivers of the approach taken in the Financial Services Act 2021. It is one of the key reasons why the Government are allowing for the continuation of LIBOR under a synthetic methodology. Article 23FB also provides the Treasury with three limited powers to make regulations. The powers are intended to future-proof this legislation, allowing the Government to ensure that an appropriate legislative framework is in place to support the orderly wind-down of future critical benchmarks across the wide range of contracts and arrangements that could reference those benchmarks.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) referenced concern about timing. As I mentioned, that provision allows for wind-down over a 10-year period. We want to continue to encourage the wind-down over the coming period. We reserve the right to make further legislative interventions, but we envisage that they would be on a smaller and diminishing pool of contracts.

I turn to clause 2. On Second Reading, I spoke to the narrow and targeted immunity that the Bill provides for the administrator of a critical benchmark for action that it is required to take by the FCA. That is the clause’s purpose. It inserts new article 23FC into the benchmarks regulation. The clause, as with clause 1, deals with the circumstance where the FCA has designated a benchmark as an article 23A benchmark. Article 23FC concerns the liability of the administrator of an article 23A benchmark. The administrator will be responsible for administering the change in methodology as directed by the FCA, and as I set out on Second Reading.

Importantly, the clause provides that the administrator of an article 23A benchmark is not liable in damages for action—or inaction—that it is required to take by the FCA under article 23D of the benchmarks regulation, or for publishing the benchmark as it exists as a result of the FCA’s direction under article 23D. In essence, that gives protection to the administrator in terms of liability related to the FCA’s direction of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I will not detain the House by repeating my comments on Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for his answers to a number of my questions, but one question he did not pick up, and on which I hope he can give some assurance, is what happens if something goes badly wrong with people’s mortgages. The small percentage of people who have mortgages covered by this legislation—although it could potentially be quite a big number of people—are now, through no fault of their own, quite literally staking their home on our getting this right. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not commit to a specific compensation scheme just now, will he at least give an assurance that the Government have not closed the door on that possibility should unforeseen circumstances lead to it being necessary?

I am also looking for clarity on the precise circumstances in which the administrator does or does not have immunity from legal action. The Minister has said the administrator is covered if it does something the law says it has to do, and it will not be covered if it does something it has chosen to do in a particular way. Does the administrator have discretion on the precise methodology it uses to calculate synthetic LIBOR, and can it exercise its judgment on the numbers it puts into the model? If the administrator has such discretion, nobody needs to sue it for using a synthetic LIBOR model; they can just sue it because of how it has carried out the calculation.

Given the nature of contracts of the value that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) mentioned, a slight change in the published rate can mean a lot of money. Every time the published rate is arguably a wee bit higher or a wee bit lower than somebody else thinks it might have been, one party will win and be quite happy, and the other party will lose and will potentially have a strong motivation to resort to legal action. Are administrators adequately covered against being sued simply because they have published a figure that says the current synthetic LIBOR rate is 1.2% rather than 1.25%? Are there grounds on which they might be sued because those 0.05 percentage points of difference in the published synthetic LIBOR rate either make or lose quite a lot of money?

[John Glen]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) have raised a number of questions arising from what I said. The Government are clear that we support this transition away from LIBOR by providing additional legal certainty for contracts relying on LIBOR past the end of this year. The provisions of the Bill are vital to using the synthetic rate in an orderly winding down of LIBOR, and they provide protection to consumers and the integrity of UK markets, but there are four or five elements that I will address now.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned compensation, and we do not anticipate that being an issue. As with all matters, the Treasury keeps things under review. We will continue to monitor what happens as a consequence of this methodology.

Both the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East and the hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned legal action, and it is possible that judicial review could be raised against the FCA on the synthetic methodology it is prescribing for ICE. We think that would be extremely unlikely, given that there has been an active exercise of listening to representations on designing a methodology that has broad credibility. That is fundamental to the integrity of the process. There has been no attempt to develop a methodology in isolation or separate from the consultation with the market.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East asked about both the future timetable and what will happen with contracts that have fall-back clauses overridden by the effect of this legislation. This Bill provides certainty where a fall-back provision is triggered by a benchmark ceasing to be published or made available. Neither the designation of a benchmark under article 23A of the BMR nor the imposition of a synthetic methodology would trigger the operation of the fall-back provision. Where a contractual arrangement has a fall-back provision that is triggered by other means, this Bill does not affect or override the operation of that clause. For example, it will not override a fall-back triggered by an assessment of unrepresentativeness or a prohibition on the use of the benchmark, provided that the circumstances in which the fall-back was triggered are met.

[Mr McFadden]

In layman’s terms, does that mean that a fall-back provision trumps synthetic LIBOR? That is what I am trying to get at. If there is a fall-back provision—some alternative already written into the contract—will these synthetic LIBOR continuity provisions not kick in?

[John Glen]

What we are saying is that the fall-back provisions, if they are without reference to LIBOR, would still apply. Where LIBOR is the reference, we are trying to ensure this synthetic methodology would not trigger that fall-back provision on the argument that it is distinct from the LIBOR provision in the contract. Essentially, we are trying to establish that the synthetic LIBOR methodology is synonymous with and continuous from the previous LIBOR rate, as set by the panel, but it does not intrude on the contractual issues around the fall-back on another basis. That goes back to our provisions dealing with the continuity of LIBOR rate setting through this new methodology—anything else is not the Government’s intention.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East reasonably probes me about the future timetable, and whether the provision of “moral persuasion” from the Financial Conduct Authority and warnings would be sufficient. We will keep these matters under review. What we are anticipating, and what we have seen, is a rapid and increasing move away from reference to LIBOR, and we expect that that will continue right up to the end of the year. We will look at what is required on an ongoing basis, but we think that it is quite likely that there may not be need for further legislative intervention. However, we reserve the right at a future point to legislate as needed. What we would do, as the FCA is doing, is encourage people to transition away from LIBOR.

I was also asked about the rate difference. It is possible that when the methodology of LIBOR changes from relying on panel bank contributions to using this synthetic methodology, there could be a small change in the rate of interest that borrowers with contracts that reference LIBOR will pay. I mentioned on Second Reading that we expect the synthetic LIBOR to replicate the economic outcomes achieved under the panel bank rate. Obviously, that was the intention throughout. It is difficult to say exactly what the synthetic rate will be when it replaces LIBOR. In the medium term, we would expect it to be matched to the existing LIBOR rate, but smoothed to reduce day-to-day changes.

Today’s LIBOR rate is at historic lows, and it is worth noting that the rate can fluctuate significantly. For example, if we look at the three-month LIBOR on GBP, we see that it has varied from 0.28% in September 2017 to 0.92% at the end of December 2019, and it is now 0.11%. We have seen a lot of volatility in the past few weeks because of speculation about what is happening with interest rates. So there have been some days during the past months when the synthetic methodology would have produced a lower rate than panel bank LIBOR and others when it would have produced a slightly higher one. Therefore, it is not possible to fully account for what would actually happen. I hope that that addresses the points that have been raised in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third Reading

[John Glen]

We have had a considerable debate this afternoon, both on Second Reading and in our scrutiny in Committee. I have made clear on a number of occasions the Government’s intentions in this legislation. I wish to thank the Opposition spokesmen for their contribution and thank my officials, but I do not have anything further to add.