Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully about his constituents Susan and David and their family. He also makes the point that compensation by itself is clearly not enough. With respect to the wider accountability of institutions, hospitals and civil servants, and the interaction between civil servants, Government Ministers and the NHS, there is a lot of complexity about how we respond appropriately and thoughtfully, both on the cases taken together and individually. I hope he will respect what I am saying and that we can engage on this in the Chamber at a future point.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I was contacted this morning by a constituent who, to the best of my knowledge, has never come forward before; I am still trying to establish that. As a 12-year-old girl, she received a blood transfusion that was infected with hepatitis C. She has lived with that infection for 70 years, because she was infected not in the 1970s but in the 1950s. Will the Minister give an assurance that the compensation and other support that has been outlined today will be available to all victims, regardless of how long ago they were infected? Will he outline what he is doing to ensure that others, such as my constituent, do not miss out simply because they did not realise this applies to them?

[John Glen]

The eligibility is clear: people who were infected by NHS blood, blood products and infected tissue qualify. The only challenge is how to verify that from records from a long time ago. However, such challenges can be met and we need to find ways of doing so.

Public Sector Pay

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend makes some sensible points, and he is absolutely right on the pension changes that we announced in the Budget, which the British Medical Association had been for a long time asking for, and it welcomed them. For clarity, I should make it clear that health and care workers remain exempt from the immigration health surcharge. He speaks a lot of wisdom about potential refinements to the timetable, and we will look at those carefully.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I thank the Chief Secretary for an advance copy of his statement. It was noticeable that in his initial statement he did not mention the fact that the British economy has been at a standstill since before the pandemic. It was noticeable that neither he nor the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), want to admit the part that Brexit has played in that. Everybody has been affected by covid and the war in Ukraine, but only one state in Europe is suffering from the self-inflicted damage of Brexit, and that is why economic growth in the European Union is and will continue to be higher than here.

While we certainly welcome the news that the Government have finally decided to honour the pledge on public sector pay, will the Chief Secretary acknowledge that in almost every single case the pay increases being offered to public sector workers will be less than increases in the cost of living, so in real terms they are a cut? Will he acknowledge that in almost every case the Scottish Government have already settled with our essential public sector workers in Scotland, in almost every case with a substantially higher pay deal and in most cases—certainly throughout our NHS—without a single day being lost through strike action? What are the Scottish Government getting right that this Government find so difficult?

One of the biggest challenges facing the economy is a shortage of workers, so what a brilliant move to address that by charging essential workers more to come here and contribute to our economy. Can we have full details of the increases to immigration fees, including a full statement of the expected economic impact, including an indication of the likely impact on immigration numbers? Will we be driving away essential workers and causing more damage to the economy simply to feed the right-wing fantasies of the Daily Mail and the Express? Given that there is almost unanimous agreement in Scotland that we need more immigration, not less, is it not time for the Scottish Parliament, answerable to the Scottish people, to be given the powers to decide on the immigration policies we need, rather than constantly being dragged down by the failed policies of this United Kingdom Government? Does he accept that rampant inflation and stagnant economic growth are not essential, but are deliberate political choices of this failed Government?

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I think we can agree to disagree on some of that. What we have to understand is that if we look at the growth levels over the past two years in the G7, this economy and this country have performed well. He makes a number of points. People are getting weary of this constant refrain around Brexit. There are people who voted for Brexit and people who did not; it has happened, and we will now take every step we can to maximise the benefits and opportunities and the greater discretion that we have consequential of that decision.

With respect to the specific questions about visa fees, I am sure that my colleagues in the Home Office will publish those in due course. This is a carefully calibrated decision; it is not motivated by political dogma. It is a clear decision to take necessary steps to avoid additional borrowing, and to meet the outcomes and the numbers that derive from the PRBs, which give evidence-based advice to the Government. This is a careful set of judgments. Clearly they will not please everyone, but we have to make decisions in the interests of the whole economy at this time.

Cost of Living

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I think the principle of levelling up across the United Kingdom recognises that we do not have symmetry across the local economies of the United Kingdom, and it is about investing to improve the productive capacity. Let me make some progress.

Let me look at the economic matters at hand. As I mentioned earlier, energy costs have contributed significantly to price rises. That is why we are paying half of people’s energy bills. At the Budget, we announced that the energy price guarantee will remain at £2,500 for the next three months, funded in part by the energy profits levy. Just under £26 billion between 2022-23 and 2027-28 is expected to be raised by the levy, on top of around £25 billion in tax receipts from the sector over the same period through the permanent tax regime. This measure is saving the average family a further £160 on top of the energy support measures already announced. That includes this Government’s help for all domestic electricity customers with £400 off their energy bills through the energy bills support scheme, and in providing a £200 payment for households that use alternative fuels such as heating oil through the alternative fuels payment scheme.

Alongside holding down energy bills, increasing benefit payments, increasing pension payments, a council tax rebate, the multibillion-pound household support fund—attracting Barnett consequentials—and freezing fuel duty, we are giving up to £900 in cost of living payments to households on means-tested benefits. That means that more than 7 million households across the UK have been paid a £301 cost of living payment by Wednesday 3 May as the first of three payments. This will be accompanied by a £150 payment for people on eligible disability benefits this summer, and a £300 payment on top of winter fuel payments for pensioners at the end of 2023. The latest payment follows on from up to £650 in cost of living payments delivered to households on means-tested benefits by the Government in 2022, with an additional £150 for individuals on disability benefits and £300 for pensioner households. Altogether, support to households to help with higher bills is worth £94 billion, or £3,300 per household on average across 2022-23 and 2023-24. Aside from helping the most vulnerable, the OBR’s analysis shows that, taken together, the freezing of fuel duty, changes to alcohol duty and the extension of the energy price guarantee will further lower consumer prices index inflation by 0.7 percentage points this year.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Could the Minister explain to me what has happened to the energy coming out of a country such as Scotland, which is a net exporter of energy, that suddenly makes it almost three times as expensive as it was before? Where is the 200% or 300% increase that people are paying on their fuel bills going? It is not going to the people of Scotland, so who is taking that money?

[John Glen]

I have set out the number of interventions we have made to support individuals and the taxation levies on energy companies that we have set.

With inflation running high, I understand the temptation of some to accuse companies of profiteering, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) mentioned that in her opening speech. I would like to be clear with the House that the Government stand against that practice. At a time of high inflation, companies should not be seeking financial gain at the expense of their customers. Fortunately, we have not seen widespread evidence of this in the UK thus far. Corporations’ gross profits as a percentage of GDP were 21.4% in the third quarter of 2022, which is in line with an average of 22% over the last 20 years. The net rate of return for non-financial companies—a measure of company profitability—fell in the third quarter of 2022 and remains lower than 10 years previously. Instead, companies have been hit by a combination of rising labour, energy and raw material costs, and have reacted accordingly. As I have said, and it bears repeating, we do not expect them to profit excessively, but we cannot expect them unsustainably to absorb all cost increases, so the best course of action is the course we have charted thus far—to bear down on inflation.

This is a Government of action and delivery, as I have set out. We have pledged to tackle inflation, bring down debt and grow the economy, and we are doing just that. We said we would help the most vulnerable through these challenges, and we are, and we have refined and developed those interventions to suit the evolving circumstances. We are focused on strengthening our great Union, halving inflation by the end of the year, easing the pressure on households, and boosting the economy and protecting growth—proving our economy is more resilient than predicted—as well as boosting employment to well above pre-pandemic levels and ensuring more people have the security of a steady wage. As a united Government, we will continue to remain focused on what really matters to the British people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I gave evidence to that inquiry and I heartily agree with its conclusions. Stability is at the core of the regulators’ objectives, but so is the need to look at the competitive landscape across the globe and ensure that the UK, with the city of London as a global hub for financial services, evolves and remains competitive, taking account of the risks but also developing frameworks in line with expectations, so that we can remain that world-leading global hub.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential impact of his policies on levels of poverty in Scotland.

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

Let me take those points in turn. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a point about nurses’ salaries and the cost of not having that workforce in place. That is exactly what this work will do: we will look at the gaps and respond to the pay demands in due course.

The hon. Member for Bristol South asked what the Treasury has done in terms of the money that has already been expended in looking at the changes; I cannot give her a precise figure but I would be happy to write to her. The Treasury is focused on working closely with Patricia Hewitt, the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to grip this issue in the fullest possible way, recognising the interaction between hospitals and social care, to ensure that we have the best possible solution to deal with the challenges we face.

Members will recognise that only by expanding the capacity of the social care system will we free up hospital beds, so we are making up to £2.8 billion of extra funding available to the adult social care system in England. That will increase to £4.7 billion in 2024-25. We of course need the NHS to continue to look at where it can squeeze more out of every pound—not at the expense of those on the frontline, but so that we can deliver ever-greater care—yet even with efficiency savings we will not have the NHS we all want without more money so, because of the difficult decisions taken elsewhere, we will increase the NHS budget in each of the next two years by an extra £3.3 billion. Taken together, our actions will ensure that up to £8 billion of additional funding is made available for health and social care in 2024-25.

The NHS and schools in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland face equivalent pressures, so the Barnett consequentials of today’s announcement will mean an extra £1.5 billion for the Scottish Government, £1.2 billion for the Welsh Government and £650 million for the Northern Ireland Executive. We make this investment not just because it is the right thing to do but as a central plank of our economic policy.

Similarly, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, an investment in education is an investment in growth. The foundation of our success lies in the classroom just as much as it is found in the boardroom. I was very pleased to see representations from my parliamentary neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who made that point very clearly, as did a number of colleagues.

We are not just going to protect the education budget; we are going to increase it. The core schools budget will rise by £2.3 billion in both of the next two years—2023-24 and 2024-25—restoring 2010 levels of per pupil funding in real terms. Not only is that the right thing to do, but it makes economic sense: more opportunity will not only reap a fairer society, but deliver a more prosperous economy.

Just as we look to improve opportunities for those aged 16 and under, we are determined to help people already in work to raise their incomes, progress in work and become financially independent. That is why we have uprated working age and disability benefits in line with inflation, at a cost of £11 billion. It is also why we will ask more than 600,000 more people on universal credit to meet a work coach, so that they can get the support they need to increase their hours or earnings, and we will invest an extra £280 million to crack down on benefit fraud and error over the next two years.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

The job conditionality that the Minister has just referred to has been welcomed in certain sections of the right-wing press, whose agenda says that the only reason somebody is not working full time is that they are too lazy and would rather be on benefits. For the record, can he state categorically that that is not the way His Majesty’s Government regards people on benefits?

[John Glen]

My view is that we want to maximise the productive capacity of the labour force that exists in this country. That means doing everything we can to encourage people to take the opportunities that exist across the economy.

Safe Hands Funeral Plans

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing this important and timely debate on an incredibly emotive subject. I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their contributions, including the hon. Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith). I will specifically address the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) for raising his constituent’s case.

I take this opportunity to remember our former colleague Sir David Amess. He was a friend to many of us here today, and he cared very much about helping people manage the financial impact of funerals. I thank hon. Members who have campaigned over the past few years in support of regulation. I recall conversations with Neil Gray, the former hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who first tabled a private Member’s Bill to this effect in 2016.

Finally, I am grateful to hon. Members here today for the points they have raised. I think I will be able to address many of those points, and I will write to them on anything that I do not address.

As has been said, funerals are painful experiences, but they can also provide people with a degree of mental closure, because they help us to adjust to the reality of the loss of a loved one. We are all very much agreed that at such a moment mourners should be able to focus on their memories of their loved one and on their own emotions; no one should be consumed by money worries. Clearly, therefore, Safe Hands’ entering administration, as the hon. Lady accurately set out, is very distressing for its customers and their families. Obviously, she mentions eloquently the case of Mr Hughes and what he has experienced in recent weeks. Our thoughts should be with those who have recently lost someone close to them and now find themselves affected by Safe Hands’ failure. As has been mentioned, Dignity, one of the UK’s largest funeral plan providers, has stepped in to provide funerals on behalf of Safe Hands’ customers in the immediate period after the firm entered into administration. I echo the hon. Lady’s words in expressing gratitude that it has stepped up to the mark and agreed to do that for a further six months. I regret the fact that her constituent does not have clarity on exactly where that leaves him, but of course Safe Hands will be entering the administration process and that will need to be concluded before wider issues can be looked at. I met people from Dignity yesterday, along with my Treasury officials, and they reiterated their commitment for the next six months. It has been very welcome to see a funeral plan provider taking that responsibility for protecting the sector’s customers and upholding the industry’s reputation.

I had the privilege of meeting my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and members of the all-party group and of the industry a few weeks ago to discuss what was happening with this difficult case. Although the Financial Conduct Authority does not yet regulate funeral plan providers, it is supporting the industry and administrators as they look to find a longer-term solution for Safe Hands’ customers. I am very hopeful that customers will not need to wait too much longer before they see further progress on this longer-term approach. However, I strongly believe that what has happened to Safe Hands is clear evidence of the pressing need for a better-regulated funeral plan market that will provide customers with the stability they need at such a difficult time and will allow us, as Members of Parliament with constituents who have been affected by Safe Hands’ demise, the reassurance and confidence that we can see them not worry in future.

Although the sector provides a valuable service, there is still some distance to travel when it comes to ensuring that all funeral plan customers are shielded from harm. Indeed, major reports and work carried out by the Treasury and the FCA revealed examples of consumer detriment in the sector. As a result, last year, we legislated to bring providers and intermediaries within the regulatory remit of the FCA. That change means that from 29 July funeral plan providers will be subject to robust and enforceable standards for the first time. These standards will benefit consumers in a number of ways, for instance, by giving them clarity about what is covered by their plans, and ending high-pressure and misleading sales tactics. In addition, for the first time funeral plan customers will be able to access a redress scheme, which will be provided by the Financial Ombudsman Service. Ultimately, we believe a well-regulated market will promote effective competition and drive better long-term consumer outcomes. I recognise that this industry does have an important role to play; the demise of Safe Hands will be dealt with through the administration process and there may well then be further examination of what happened, but my determination is that we will get this regulation right and provide security to the industry. The vast majority of firms in the industry are doing the right thing at the moment and I am clear that once they have adjusted to that new regime, we will have confidence going forward.

The Government recognise that the new regulation presents a major change for providers, which is why we introduced an 18-month transition period before the new rules came into effect. That has given businesses time to take the right steps to familiarise themselves with the new requirements and prepare to adopt them.

We of course recognise that it is paramount that we minimise any disruption to customers as a result of the changes, which is why the FCA has said that providers that decide not to or cannot obtain authorisation should transfer their plans to a provider that will operate under the new rules. Alternatively, businesses should wind down in an orderly way before the regulation comes into force.

On that note, Members may be aware that last month the Government made a supplementary statutory instrument that will make it easier for funeral plan providers that seek to exit the market to transfer their existing funeral plan to a regulated funeral plan provider. I discussed that change with Dignity yesterday, and it welcomed it. It should ease the process for the relatively small number of people who find themselves subject to a plan the provider of which will not go into regulation: they will be able to port their plan to one of the bigger industry providers.

When we bring a sector into regulation for the first time, there is clearly a possibility that some providers will be unable to meet the authorisation threshold. In addition, the process may reveal that some businesses are unable to deliver on promises they have made to their customers.

[Peter Grant]

The Minister is understandably focusing on the new regulatory regime—I think he is aware of some of my concerns about the adequacy of the FCA as currently set up—but there should have been other regulation. Who should have been regulating the activities of the trust? Who should have prevented it from engaging in wildly speculative, insecure investments, directly against the promises that were made? Safe Hands Plans Ltd’s first two years of accounts contained demonstrably and obviously false statements, which were never picked up on by Companies House. Who should have been regulating that? Does the Minister accept that regardless of the changes to the regulation of funeral plan companies, there appear to have been serious regulatory failures elsewhere, again?

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman makes his points somewhat speculatively, but expresses some valid specific concerns about the journey that Safe Hands went on. Other investigations cannot take place until the administration process is concluded. The driver for the regulations that we are to introduce was the fear among Members from all parties a few years ago. The important thing is to give reassurance going forward. There will be a day of reckoning for the directors of Safe Hands, who will have to account for what happened, but the administration process must happen first. I cannot say any more on that, but the hon. Gentleman’s relevant points are noted.

I must stress that an inability to meet the new standards of regulation—because of issues with conduct, business models or trust arrangements—does not mean that the regulation is at fault; rather, by bringing the sector into regulation, we expose unsustainable practices that, left unchecked, could ultimately worsen and impact more consumers. As the famous adage says, sunlight is the best disinfectant. In this instance, by regulating we will turn the spotlight on businesses that operate with unworkable models, and will prevent consumer harm.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) asked about the low-interest loan scheme that we have been piloting with South Manchester Credit Union. I hope to visit Manchester in the week after next. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a wider agenda in terms of affordable credit, and I am still very much committed to developing that instrument and making it widely available, alongside making other interventions in respect of credit unions that we can talk about when the financial services and markets Bill comes to the House shortly.

It is right that the Government act to protect consumers, many of whom will be elderly or vulnerable, with a robust, proportionate regulatory framework. In addition, a well-regulated market will promote effective competition and drive better long-term outcomes for consumers. As I have said, Safe Hands customers can be assured that they will be covered for at least another six months. I encourage other providers and market participants to take further action, as Dignity has done, to protect consumers of firms that will not become authorised.

I assure the House that the Government and the Financial Conduct Authority continue to work closely with each other and with the sector—I have mentioned those two meetings that I have personally held, and meetings that my officials have held, with industry representatives—to ensure that that shift to regulation is as smooth as possible. I take account of the several valid points raised this afternoon. We all have a moral obligation to ensure that funeral plan customers and their loved ones receive the certainty that they need and deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT MONEY LAUNDERING AND TERRORIST FINANCING (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2022

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Monday 7th February 2022 General Committees

[John Glen]

I will endeavour to cover the points raised by the hon. Members for Hampstead and Kilburn, for Glenrothes, and for Wallasey. I acknowledge that a number of those points refer to the broader canvas of economic crime and I shall try to deal succinctly with those, respecting the fact that the Treasury Committee published a report last week, on which the Government will reflect and respond in due course. There is an obligation and, indeed, a determination on my part to bring forward a broader money laundering SI later this year.

It is the Government’s view that this amendment will assist in ensuring that the money laundering regulations operate as effectively as possible and continue to protect the financial system from the threat posed by money laundering and terrorist financing, and that will allow the UK to continue to play its part in the fight against economic crime.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn mentioned several points made by Transparency International and other organisations about access to trust information. The SI will extend the existing exclusion for insurance trusts to exclude all healthcare policies in trust and will clarify how the exclusion applies to certain retirement policies and life policies with temporary disablement cover. The SI also adds a new exclusion for trusts created in the course of opening child bank accounts. Indeed, the regulations set out 23 different exclusions: this is not an exhaustive list, but it includes pension trusts, insurance trusts, registrable charitable trusts and trusts meeting certain legislative requirements.

When the trust service was set up, the register of beneficial ownership of trusts—the trust registration service—was established five years ago. We have now seen 200,000 taxable trusts registered. It is the case that it is perfectly legitimate for some of those trusts to be excluded. There is a matter of the legitimate privacy for some of the trustees, but that does not prevent law enforcement or regulated entities from being able to access them.

I think that there is a question here about the IT service. The hon. Members for Wallasey and for Hampstead and Kilburn mentioned that. It is clear that HMRC has had an enormous task over the last two years to deliver some pretty complex interventions. The regulations simply give an extension on those registration deadlines. I am not convinced that there is an enduring IT problem in HMRC; there is an administrative necessity consequential to a particular failure.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes picked me up on the use of certain language. It was not my intention to be provocative, but it is my sincere wish to convey the absolute frustration that we feel and our desire to shut down loopholes that allow bad actors to enter our financial system.

[Peter Grant]

I do not have an issue with the Minister’s use of the phrase “hostile environment”. I was making the point that, as the phrase has been previously used in respect of people whom we should have made welcome, it loses a lot of its impact when used in its correct context.

[John Glen]

That is a reasonable observation. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman’s frustration echoes mine; I have been in this job over four years, and I was before the Treasury Committee on 29 November referring to some of these imperatives, which had been thrown into focus by the FATF report in December 2018. We need to make further interventions. I cannot prejudge the outcome or the business managers, as I think the hon. Member for Wallasey knows, but the point is that this is an absolute imperative from where I stand in the Treasury. We do need this legislation to deal with the broader issues that are outstanding.

Tackling Fraud and Preventing Government Waste

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant]

We all vividly remember the triumphant statements from the Chancellor at the time about how much money was being made available, but can the Minister refer us to any mention in Hansard from the Chancellor at the time about the levels of fraud that were being provided for in any of those schemes?

[John Glen]

When we designed the schemes, it was clear that we had to put in reasonable measures around the identity of individuals and that we had to allow people to self-report their turnover. The whole conversation with the banks was designed to ensure that that money was available as quickly as possible while not being reckless with those finances. We did it on the basis that, inevitably, there would be a measure of fraud. I am grateful for the measured way in which the hon. Gentleman speaks in the House. I cannot give a specific answer to his question, but that explains the context in which the schemes were designed.

The measures that we put in place were robust and comprehensive. There was no one single point in time where we said, “We’ve got everything right”—I would never stand at this Dispatch Box and say that. Some £2.2 billion of potentially fraudulent bounce back loan applications were blocked through up-front checks and extra fraud checks were introduced in relation to the bounce back scheme at the earliest practical point. The Government categorically do not accept the suggestion, however, that those checks could have been part of the scheme at its launch.

I have spoken to officials on several occasions over the last two years about what more could have been done at the inception of those schemes. The extra checks that we put in place as quickly as we could would have delayed the start of the schemes, which were already delayed because of the circumstances I explained earlier. It would have caused further delay—in some cases, not just weeks but months—and would have led to serious harm for many SMEs at a time of what we all acknowledge was acute crisis.

Subsequently, however, we have given the Insolvency Service and Companies House new powers to prevent rogue company directors from escaping liability for their loans by winding down their businesses. We have invested £4.9 million in the National Investigation Service to probe serious fraud and it has recovered £3.1 million in the last year alone.

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

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Tuesday 7th December 2021 General Committees

[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.

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

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

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

[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.

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

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

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.

Financial Conduct Authority and Blackmore Bond plc

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for their contributions. I extend my sympathies to the Blackmore Bond investors. The hon. Member for Glenrothes set out the distress that has been caused to those many individuals, some of whom are his constituents. I am painfully aware of their very challenging situation through my own conversations and correspondence, and this evening we have heard more of those troubling accounts. Given these difficult circumstances, it is only right that I explain the reasoning behind the Government’s course of action and some of the decisions that we have made so far. I will also touch on the conduct of the FCA, the independent regulator.

Let me first remind the House of the background to this situation. As Members will be aware, Blackmore Bond was an unregulated firm established in 2016. Between 2016 and 2018, it issued non-transferable debt securities, otherwise known as mini-bonds, to retail investors. It raised £46 million, involving approximately 2,800 UK investors, to be used in property development projects. Blackmore stopped making coupon payments in 2019 and administrators were appointed on 22 April last year.

The orientation of most of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks was about the failures of the FCA, but I want to try to address some of his other specific points. He asked about the way that Blackmore hid behind other regulated firms such as Amyma. It is true that although several other firms were involved in the distribution of Blackmore bonds, some of which were authorised by the FCA, the Blackmore bond itself was not regulated. Amyma was not directly authorised by the FCA. It was an appointed representative of another authorised firm, Equity For Growth (Securities) Ltd, between July 2018 and September 2019, when its status was terminated. The FCA intervened to take down Amyma’s website following further investigation. Similarly, as a result of steps taken by the FCA, Northern Provident Investments, an FCA-authorised firm, withdrew its approval of Blackmore’s promotional materials, meaning that its bonds could no longer be marketed. This is clearly a very complex area, but ultimately the FCA cannot be said to have the same set of responsibilities towards unauthorised firms engaged in unregulated activities.

[Peter Grant]

The Minister gave the same dates on Amyma as me—between 2018 and 2019. Did it not strike him, as it struck me, that Amyma was an appointed representative of another company, but the concerns about it arose in 2017, before it appeared to be an appointed representative of anybody? Does he not agree that there is something to be looked at there and that the Financial Conduct Authority should be asking questions about it?

[John Glen]

I have set out the record as the FCA has presented it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to continue correspondence with the FCA on some of those unresolved matters. However, I do make the distinction between the different responsibilities that the FCA has with regard to the different actors in this case.

It is only right that we do our utmost to minimise the chance of episodes like Blackmore Bond taking place in future, so I want to turn to the regulation of mini-bonds and the steps we are taking to safeguard consumers, which was a key focus of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I want to be clear to the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that the financial services sector is well regulated and consumers are adequately protected. That is why in April we launched a consultation that includes proposals to bring the issuance of mini-bonds into regulation. This follows the action taken by the FCA to ban the promotion of high-risk mini-bonds. This work is the culmination of a review into the regulation of mini-bonds that I announced in May 2019, and it delivers on one of the recommendations of Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s recent report. The consultation closes next month, in July, after which the Government hope to bring forward plans to legislate in the autumn.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes also referred to the financial promotions regime, and I think that underlying that was a concern about what the Government are doing to improve the efficacy of the regime. We continue to keep the legislative framework underpinning the regulation of financial promotions under review, including whether it is suitable for the digital age. The Government have set out our intention to bring forward legislation to create a regulatory gateway for authorised firms approving the promotion of unauthorised firms. That change is designed to strengthen the regime by ensuring that the firms able to approve financial promotions are limited to those with the relevant expertise to do so. The FCA will be able to better identify when a financial promotion has breached the restriction and take action accordingly.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and I thank all Committee members for their consideration of this important legislation.

As I set out on Second Reading, the Bill is a vital step in compensating LCF bondholders, and I will now turn directly to the consideration of amendments 1 and 7. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East set out, amendment 1 seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a set of criteria for when the taxpayer should compensate investors for investment failures. In essence, it brings some clarity about when the mechanism that we are adopting, and hopefully funding, through the passage of the Bill would be used. Amendment 7 seeks to require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report that assesses the impact of the Government’s compensating the customers of London Capital & Finance plc, as well as broader issues relevant to the mis-selling scandal.

I have listened very carefully to the speeches made during the passage of the Bill, on Second Reading and today, and to the evidence that we received this morning. I am particularly drawn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who acknowledged that a degree of risk is involved with any investment. With the right set of regulations and requirements, however, investors can be equipped with the right information to understand their risks and to make informed choices. The Government’s scheme appropriately balances the interests of both bondholders and the taxpayer, and it will ensure that all LCF bondholders receive a fair level of compensation for the financial loss they have suffered.

I turn now to compensation. I must reiterate that LCF’s failure was unique and exceptional. It is the only failed mini-bond issuer that was FCA-authorised and was selling bonds in order to on-lend to other companies. In conjunction with the FCA, the Treasury has looked at eight mini-bond firms that have failed in recent years, and LCF is unique in that respect. It is important to emphasise that the Government cannot and should not stand behind every investment loss. As I have probably said previously, LCF’s business model was highly unusual in both its scale and structure, and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding its collapse are unique.

[Peter Grant]

Has the Economic Secretary or any of his advisers actually read the promotional material that companies such as Blackmore Bond were giving out, to assess the number of times that words such as “guarantee” and “secure” were included in those documents? Does he not accept that something needs to be looked at there—maybe not for compensation this time, but certainly for tighter regulation in the future?

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it takes me to the question of what the Government are doing to improve the efficacy of the financial promotions regime that he mentioned in respect of a different failure. We continue to keep the legislative framework underpinning the regulation of financial promotions under review, including whether it is suitable for the digital age. Many of the promotions are obviously online. We will publish a response in the early summer to the consultation on a regulatory gateway for authorised firms approving the promotion of unauthorised firms. It is not an issue that we take lightly. Change, once in place, is designed to strengthen the regime by ensuring that firms able to approve financial promotions are limited to those with the relevant expertise to do so. The FCA will be better able to identify when a financial promotion has breached the restrictions and take action accordingly, but that does not mean that the LCF failure is not unique and of a different scale and quality from some of the other failures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

The Minister referred to the fact that there are ongoing investigations in relation to LCF. Does he recognise that some of the individuals and intermediary businesses that are now under criminal investigation for their part in LCF also played a major part in other mini-bond scandals that I have written to him about separately? Although he made the point about the uniqueness of LCF, the aftershock of LCF is very definitely being felt in other mini-bond scandals that have happened since then.

[John Glen]

Out of courtesy, I am very happy to respond to my colleagues. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East asked why the 80% figure was not 100%. As I have tried to explain through the submissions that I have made, the Government have been trying throughout to balance the interests of bondholders and the taxpayer to ensure that we have a fair level of compensation in respect of the financial losses incurred. The scheme is based on the FSCS level of compensation but, as he knows, it is 80% up to that cap of £68,000 to reflect the unregulated nature of the LCF product.

I emphasise that it is imperative to avoid creating the misconception that Government will stand behind bad investments in future, even where the FSCS does not apply. That would create a moral hazard for investors and potentially lead individuals to choose unsuitable investments thinking that the Government will provide compensation when things go wrong. To avoid creating that misconception, and to take into account the wide range of factors that contributed to the losses that the Government would not ordinarily compensate for, the Government will establish the scheme at the level of 80% of LCF bondholders’ initial investment up to the maximum of £68,000. With any investment, there is clearly a risk that sometimes investors will lose money, and the Government and taxpayer cannot and should not be expected to step in and compensate for every failure and every loss. It would not be right or fair for investors in non-regulated products to receive fuller compensation than those who have invested in regulated products, for which the maximum amount is capped at £85,000 under the FSCS.

On the remarks of the hon. Member for Glenrothes about the individuals involved in an ongoing serious fraud inquiry, I am not familiar with the detail, but obviously I am happy to receive any representations. I hope that brings satisfaction to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Loans to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

[Peter Grant]

[John Glen]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

[John Glen]

Covid-19 Support Schemes: Ineligible People

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) on securing the debate, and I thank the 14 Back-Bench Members for their contributions—I listened very carefully to each—which spoke powerfully to the many cases of hardship that I recognise exist throughout the country.

I acknowledge the article written by the hon. Member for Twickenham for The House magazine today, and the briefing by ExcludedUK, which was made available yesterday for the debate. I have looked at that carefully and shall take back the three-stage approach, and we will continue to see if we can move forward. I recognise that there is a sensitivity about Ministers standing up and listing all the measures that have been put in place so far, so I will go through some of that only briefly, but I will then move on to the context and rationale behind some of our decisions, and address some of the points that have been raised.

Clearly, the pandemic has profoundly affected the lives of countless people. As a Government, we have a moral obligation to protect jobs, livelihoods and our country’s economic capacity, a point that has been made and acknowledged by many Members during the debate. We have spent £280 billion on what has been one of the most comprehensive responses, including the job retention scheme, which protected 9.6 million jobs; the self-employment income support scheme, which provided grants to 2.7 million people; affordable loans for businesses, which we have adapted over time; extra help through the welfare system; bespoke interventions for different industries, such as the £1.57 billion for the creative industries; as well as other support, such as income tax time-to-pay arrangements, payments to those asked to self-isolate and grants for businesses required to close.

We have striven, as a Government, to provide support for as many individuals and businesses as we can, as rapidly as possible. That has meant taking some difficult decisions, however. I will set out the rationale for some of those decisions, particularly in relation to the self-employed, before moving on to how we have adapted our support schemes so far.

To give some context, when we designed those schemes, we had to keep some guiding principles in mind. First, the help must be targeted at those most in need. To achieve that, we obviously had to set clear rules. That is why we have said that those eligible to claim from the self-employment income support scheme must have made profits of no more than £50,000 from self-employed activity. I recognise that for those on the upper side of the £50,000 cut-off, that must feel unfair, but we did have to draw a line somewhere, and wherever we had drawn it, we would have had the same challenge.

According to HMRC data, those in that category had an average income of between £100,000 and £200,000. We have also said that support from that scheme must go to people whose main income is from their self-employed trade. That is why we also said that to claim, workers should make at least half of their income from self-employed activity. HMRC analysis shows that typically for those who make less than 50% of their income from self-employed sources, their profits are on average between £1,800 and £3,500 per year. That strongly suggests that self-employment is not their primary income source.

I now come to the second principle that we have used, which is the need to balance the Government’s duty to support individuals with our responsibility to protect taxpayers. Colleagues will be aware of the wide concern about fraud that continues to be, rightly, something that is raised in Select Committees and by those commentating on what we have done. To verify claims through the self-employment income support scheme, we needed to use data from an individual’s tax returns, and that means using returns from the year 2018-19. That has meant that people who became self-employed in 2019-20 have been unable to access the scheme, because HMRC does not yet hold complete tax return data to check their details.

We are listening closely to individuals who pay themselves through dividends, but that presents another challenge, which is that there is no practicable way of distinguishing between dividends derived from an individual’s own company and those from other sources.

I know that the past months have been very difficult for many people in the groups that I have mentioned, but I want to stress that we have not taken a dogmatic opposition position to any particular group and we continue—

[Peter Grant]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Glen]

I will be very happy to take just one intervention.

[Peter Grant]

I am grateful to the Minister for letting me intervene. It is patent nonsense to suggest that we cannot tell the difference between shareholders who are directors of a small company and shareholders who are anonymous investors in a big company that they know nothing about. Companies House holds all those records. Why, nine months later, have HMRC and the Treasury made no attempt to do a data-matching exercise between what HMRC holds and what Companies House holds?

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, one of the challenges that we had to come to terms with was the need to deliver a scheme as quickly as possible, and to as many people as possible, within the context of a finite number of individuals who could verify that data. Short of introducing a scheme whereby people would need to manually go through and verify those different data sources—

[Peter Grant]

indicated dissent.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that, practically, was the challenge that we, working with officials, had to overcome. We had to make a judgment as to how to reconcile those two realities.

I want to reiterate that we are not adopting dogmatic opposition to any particular group, or contribution or idea that could move this forward. We need to protect the taxpayer, but that has not overridden our determination to provide support and we will continue to think about how we can improve the way the schemes that I have mentioned are targeted.

We have adapted already. We extended the cut-off point by which workers needed to be on their company’s payroll to be eligible to be furloughed, allowing more workers to receive those payments, and that potentially includes freelancers paid through PAYE. Some workers may be able to benefit from the recent changes that allow employers to re-furlough workers who left their jobs between 23 September and 30 October. And since July, employers have been able to bring back previously furloughed workers while still claiming from the Government for any hours not worked. We have adapted the self-employment income support scheme to help new parents who have taken time out of work, along with self-employed armed forces reservists, who were previously not covered.

I would like to add that people who are ineligible for one scheme may still be able to get support from one of the many other sources that I mentioned earlier, and that was not an exhaustive list.

I recognise that many people in the groups that we have talked about today fully intend to continue in their current jobs. However, we are investing to help those who decide to seek new opportunities. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently announced a £2.9 billion restart programme, which will provide intensive and tailored support to help people to find work.

I listened to the range of contributions from constituents across the country. It is very, very challenging for us to provide support for every single group that is struggling at this time, but I reiterate our willingness to continue to work with groups, including IPSE, the relevant APPG, the FSB and others, that bring forward proposals. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is engaged in many of those conversations. As we move through into the new year, we will continue to look at the new schemes.

Our overriding goal has been to provide as much support as we can to people and businesses, and as rapidly as possible. We acknowledge that we have not been able to help everyone in the way that we would ideally want to, but that has not been a wilful disregard for their situation; it is based on the challenges of verifying. It is not attributing any blame to them either. We have succeeded in supporting millions of people and businesses through this intensely difficult time, and we will continue to do our very best until we have beaten coronavirus.

Andrey Lugvoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2020

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Monday 10th February 2020 General Committees

[John Glen]

I am grateful to Members from across the Committee for their support for the new order. I will come to address the points made, but we should focus on the key point here. Absent any progress in bringing Lugovoy and Kovtun to justice, denying them access to the UK financial system, in combination with the European arrest warrants and the Interpol red notices that remain in place against them, continues to send a clear signal about how fundamentally we disapprove of the actions that they took, which led to Mr Litvinenko’s death.

The hon. Member for Bootle, perfectly reasonably and appropriately, made some points about the review of the codes of practice and ensuring that they are up to date with various pieces of legislation. He spoke about the need to bring and ensure continuing clarity and lack of ambiguity, and for the Government to be open and transparent in this area. Those codes are the responsibility of the Home Office, but I am sure they will have noted the points that he made.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes spoke about wider issues involving the Intelligence and Security Committee and its report into Russia. That Committee will be constituted in the very near future; it is not for the Government to tell the Committee when to publish its reports, but it would be good to get these matters into the public domain.

[Peter Grant]

I accept that the Government cannot tell the Committee when to publish the report, but they did tell the Committee when not to publish the report. Does the Minister understand that that causes considerable concern to a lot of people—and not only on the Opposition side of the House?

[John Glen]

I think the Government have made their position clear. It will be for the new Committee, once constituted, to determine the timings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton made some points about the mechanics of how the asset freezing process works and the definition of those assets. It would probably be appropriate for me to write to her on that matter, because that is a technical process that I am not privy to this afternoon, and it would be difficult for me to give her satisfaction.

Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Public Works Loan Commissioners) Order 2019

Debate between John Glen and Peter Grant

Monday 3rd February 2020 General Committees

[John Glen]

It is helpful to put this in context. The rate was a function of the prevailing gilt rates last year, and the change brought it back to the level of the previous year, so we should not see this as a great leap in interest rate that will have a major effect. It is questionable whether the advantageous window offered by the relationship to the historically very low gilt rate was creating a different sort of behaviour. Again, that is outside the scope of my comments. I am happy to look at these matters, which are under ongoing review.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for Glenrothes’s remarks. He expressed general concern about any Government Minister taking control of anything, because he has no confidence in the Government. This is not a matter of Government Ministers overruling local authorities; the change is a reform of governance, with no practical effect on local authorities. It is based on the prudential code; decisions on borrowing and spending are devolved, and that continues. The Government consulted on this in 2017, and found widespread support for it. I am told that when the commissioners have met annually to sign off the annual report, they have said that they were keen for this SI to pass. The SI is quite complicated because it makes many references to primary legislation, and was delayed because of the events of recent years.

[Peter Grant]

I am interested to hear the Minister say that there is no practical effect on local authorities. The Government’s explanatory memorandum claims that the process will become more effective for local authorities. Is that not a practical effect? Does the Minister intend to reply to my question about whose policies will be implemented more effectively?

[John Glen]

The process is more effective in so far as the ceremonial role, which did not meaningfully alter any decisions on the ground, is transferred to the Treasury. There, we can ensure that we have a quorate body meeting to oversee the borrowing, but it will not make any different arbitration decisions, because the existing group of commissioners do not make those decisions. I am sorry that there has been a misunderstanding, but the order is not a power grab by the Treasury.

Transferring the powers of the public works loans commissioners to the Treasury will place that crucial function on a secure platform, enabling the continuity of lending for essential local capital projects. Those investments are often fundamental to quality of life and economic development, and by passing the SI, we will enhance the robustness and resilience of the lending facility, thereby supporting local authorities in such endeavours. I hope that the Committee has found the sitting informative and will join me in supporting the Order.

Question put.