Coronavirus Grant Schemes: Fraud

Debate between Stephen Flynn and John Glen

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I have been in the Treasury for more than four years under three Chancellors. I have supported them all to the best of my ability, and I will continue to do so. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that the Chancellor has been absolutely committed from the start to design the best possible scheme to provide the money to support businesses and individuals up and down this country. Since then, the £100 million investment in extra HMRC personnel has been designed to maximise the recovery of fraud. The work on duplicate application checks, the changes in director information and the HMRC turnover check—all these insights were designed to minimise the loss to the taxpayer. That governs the Chancellor’s approach, and it governs the approach of all Ministers and officials in the Treasury.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

What does it say about the integrity of this Tory Government that they are willing to write off billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money while, at the same time, cutting the income of millions of people on universal credit during a cost of living crisis?

[John Glen]

This Government made a range of interventions to support people in different forms and in different ways. We were clear from the very start that we would not be able to help everyone. One of the issues we had to reconcile was verification of people’s identity and status, and this measure to prevent fraud arguably stopped some people accessing the benefits of some of these schemes. I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Financial Services Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Stephen Flynn and John Glen

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 11th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Flynn]

Then I will do that—thank you. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair once again, Mr Davies. It is probably accurate and correct that the new clauses are grouped together, because they are quite similar in scope, particularly when considering the wider issue of divergence. I will come back to that.

New clause 28 seeks to provide an impact assessment before disapplying European Union rules or applying rules different from those of the EU. That is incredibly important, because it goes to the core of what the Bill is about in relation to our leaving the European Union. Only a few day ago, the Governor of the Bank of England highlighted that a no-deal Brexit could of course lead to a worse economic situation than covid. We need to be in a position to assess the reality of what the Government seek to do. That should apply in the case of no-deal, a good deal—as far as the Government see it—a bad deal or a “Boris deal”.

We should compare what we could have had with what we get. We should be open and transparent with the public about that. The Government talk about wanting to take back control and parliamentary sovereignty; let us take that back to the people as well and show them that the Government are being open and transparent with everything that is put forward. That is particularly important in a Scottish context because—lest we forget—the people of Scotland did not vote for Brexit, and they do not want it to happen, so it is incumbent on the UK Government to provide that clarity to them, particularly on such important matters.

If the Government are proud of the actions that they are taking and seek to go down a different path, they should be willing to follow up on their actions and be open and transparent, not shy away from that.

That takes me on to new clause 36, which would do something very similar to new clause 28, but rather than looking at the potential impact of future decisions, it would provide for an annual review of the decisions that had been taken. That, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East said, is, in the context of equivalence, incredibly important, particularly if we are to see the UK diverge from the European Union in any way, shape or form. As we have heard, the Chancellor has guaranteed equivalence to the European Union, so it will have access to the UK markets, but of course there is not a similar agreement in place for us. Conservative Members would, understandably, argue that that is the EU’s fault and that the EU should be delivering that for us, but, as I said on Second Reading, who can blame it when this is a Government who simply cannot be trusted, a Government—lest we forget—who are willing to break international law?

Irrespective of that, we should all be concerned about the reality of not having equivalence in place and what that could lead to. We have made and heard suggestions that it could mean, ultimately, divergence in relation to MiFID—the markets in financial instruments directive. It could mean divergence in relation to the wider insurance regulatory framework. I appreciate that there are arguments both in favour and against in that regard, but we need always to be mindful of what we are seeking to diverge from in relation to our wider relationship with the European Union. I appreciate that it will ultimately be in the gift of the Government to do these things, but they should surely have some concerns about the actions that they will be taking.

I go back to the comments that I made about new clause 28. If the Government are proud of the actions that they take and have taken, they will be willing to accept both new clause 28 and new clause 36 and to put their money where their mouth is and be open and transparent with the people of Scotland and the people of the United Kingdom that their decisions have not been ones that have had disastrous consequences for the economy of the UK. I suggest that if they do not accept the new clauses, that is because they know the damage that they are going to do.

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

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. These new clauses seek to place requirements on the Government to make various reports related to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and the subsequent evolution of our financial services regulation.

New clause 2 deals with equivalence, which is an important mechanism for managing cross-border financial services activity. I can well understand hon. Members’ interest in that. However, the obligation that the new clause would impose on the Government—essentially, to report on the status of the EU’s considerations about UK equivalence—is beyond the Government’s power and therefore not something that the Government can agree to do.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East rightly referred to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s speech on 9 November, in which he made clear that we have made equivalence decisions—17 of the 30 that we have to make. We have co-operated very fully with the EU in terms of a timely response to the 17 questionnaires. Again, we cannot determine how it responds. Equivalence assessments are an autonomous process, managed separately from trade negotiations. That applies in the case of the EU, and where the EU chooses to grant the UK equivalence, that will be done in accordance with its own decision-making process. EU equivalence determinations are unilateral and do not require the UK’s agreement. Those decisions will be published and readily available to all, including UK parliamentarians.

I can reiterate today the Government’s commitment to operating an open and transparent approach to equivalence as the Chancellor explained in his speech on 9 November. Our overall approach is outlined in the recently published guidance document on the UK’s equivalence framework. That document makes it very clear that transparency will be one of the key principles of our equivalence framework.

As part of this, the Treasury will provide Parliament with appropriate information about the operation of the equivalence framework. After the end of the transition period, future equivalence decisions will be made by regulations laid before Parliament, giving Members the opportunity to consider and scrutinise the Treasury’s decisions as part of the UK’s normal legislative process.

As I said, the Chancellor recently announced a package of equivalence decisions following the completion of our assessment of the EU, where we took a thorough but proportionate outcomes-based assessment against the criteria in legislation. As the EU has confirmed publicly, there are many areas where it is not prepared to assess the UK at the current time. In the absence of clarity from the EU, we have made decisions to provide clarity and stability to industry, supporting the openness of the sector and to help to deliver our goal of open, well-regulated markets.

Financial Services Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Stephen Flynn and John Glen

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Flynn]

New clause 26 seeks to give retail clients greater legal protection against the mis-selling of financial services products, and new clause 27 seeks to give small businesses greater legal protections against the mis-selling of financial services products. I want to make a couple of quick remarks on that matter.

I do not need to tell hon. Members how important small businesses are. They make up three fifths of employment, and half the turnover in the UK private sector goes through small businesses. Those are telling figures. What is more, just 36% of small businesses use external finance; indeed, seven in 10 would rather forgo any growth than take on external finance. That is an important point that the Government must reflect on.

As they deliberate on why that may be the case, I will provide some additional information. There is a history of mis-selling, which causes small businesses a great deal of concern. Although regulation has been tightened, gaps remain. For example, small businesses complained earlier this year about the mis-selling of interest rate swaps. The FCA found that 90% of those businesses did not have a clue what that meant in reality, and it went on to talk about the dialogue between sophisticated and unsophisticated businesses in that regard.

The ultimate issue is that small businesses did not know what they were getting themselves into, and I think that is telling. No one wants that situation to arise, now or in the future. I encourage the Government to take heed of that and, therefore, agree to both new clauses.

[John Glen]

The Government are committed to ensuring that the interests of individuals and businesses that use financial services are protected. With the creation of the conduct-focused Financial Conduct Authority in 2013, we have ensured that those interests continue to be placed at the heart of our regulatory system and given the priority that they deserve.

The Government have given the FCA a strong mandate to stop inappropriate behaviour in financial services, and it has a wide range of enforcement powers—criminal, civil and regulatory—to protect consumers and businesses alike. That means taking action against firms and individuals that do not meet appropriate standards.

These new clauses, which have been tabled by the hon. Members for Glasgow Central and for Aberdeen South, seek to broaden the scope of parties that can seek action for damages related to mis-selling of financial services. The changes are unnecessary, however, because businesses already have robust avenues for pursuing financial services complaints. The Government are committed to ensuring that we do not unnecessarily push up the cost of borrowing for small businesses by creating additional legislative burdens.

In April 2019, the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service was expanded to allow more SMEs to put forward complaints, and that covers 97% of SMEs in the UK. An enterprise that employs fewer than 50 people and has a turnover that does not exceed £6.5 million is entitled to bring a complaint to the FOS. If that complaint is upheld, the FOS can make an award of up to £350,000 in relation to acts or omissions that took place on or after 1 April 2019.

Moreover, SMEs will also have access to the business banking resolution service, an independent non-governmental body, which will provide dispute resolution for businesses. It will serve two purposes. First, it will address historical cases from 2000, which would now be eligible for the FOS but which were not at the time, and which have not been through another independent redress scheme. Secondly, it will address future complaints from businesses with a turnover of between £6.5 million and £10 million.

Given the robust avenues that are available to businesses for pursuing financial services complaints, I hope the Committee will agree that the new clauses are not necessary, and I respectfully ask the hon. Members not to press them.

[Stephen Flynn]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 29

Review of Impact of Scottish National Investment Bank Powers

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effect of the use of the powers in this Act in Scotland and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent.

(2) A review under this section must consider the effects of the changes on—

(a) business investment,

(b) employment,

(c) productivity,

(d) inflation,

(e) financial stability, and

(f) financial liquidity.

(3) The review must also estimate the effects on the changes in the event of each of the following—

(a) the Scottish Government is given no new financial powers with respect to carrying over reserves between financial years,

(b) the Scottish Government is able to carry over greater reserves between financial years for use by the Scottish National Investment Bank.

(4) The review must under subsection 3(b) consider the effect of raising the reserve limit by—

(a) £100 million,

(b) £250 million,

(c) £500 million, and

(d) £1,000 million.” —(Alison Thewliss.)

This new clause requires a review of the impact of providing Scottish Government powers to allow the SNIB to carry over reserves between financial years beyond its current £100m limit.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Flynn]

I will be incredibly brief. Again, both new clauses 31 and 32 are about oversight and scrutiny. I have absolutely no doubt that Conservative Members will want to take back parliamentary sovereignty and ensure that this place has oversight of the Government’s actions.

[John Glen]

I think I have previously detailed my response to new clauses 22 and 26 why it would not be appropriate for Parliament to scrutinise all regulator rules made in relation to those two specific measures. These new clauses go further, and would require all rules made by the Financial Conduct Authority in relation to anything within this Bill to be approved by Parliament before the rules can be made, and would prevent the FCA from exercising its powers effectively. New clause 31 would make the FCA’s rule making subject to parliamentary approval. New clause 32 prevents the FCA from making rules under the Bill until two new parliamentary Committees are established. The same arguments that I made previously are relevant here: new clause 31 would apply a higher level of parliamentary scrutiny—to the FCA only—when making rules in areas covered by the Bill. That would mean that those areas were inconsistent with other areas of financial services regulation not covered by this Bill or within the remit of the Prudential Regulation Authority, which will retain the existing scrutiny requirements.

Parliament would need routinely to scrutinise a large number of detailed new rules on an ongoing basis. That is very different from the model that Parliament has previously put in place for the regulators under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, where it has judged it appropriate for the regulators to take these detailed technical decisions where they hold expertise.

Turning briefly to new clause 32, although I note that Select Committees of both Houses already have the option to scrutinise the regulators as they see fit, it is naturally for Parliament to decide how best it wishes to scrutinise financial services regulation. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to make the introduction of an investment firms prudential regime, or any of the other changes enabled by this Bill, subject to the establishment of new parliamentary Committees. Nor do I believe it is for the Treasury to make regulations related to the establishment or functioning of parliamentary Committees. As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East pointed out in an earlier sitting, that is a matter for the House to decide.

I would like to reassure the Committee that I am committed to ensuring appropriate accountability and scrutiny around new rules for our financial sector. That is why I recently published a consultation document on the review of the future regulatory framework for financial services. This review seeks to achieve the right split of responsibilities between Parliament, Government, and the regulators now that we have left the EU. It seeks views, including those of all parliamentarians, on how we can best scrutinise and hold the regulators to account, while respecting and safeguarding their independence. I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on that subject but, given what I have said, I suggest that they might consider withdrawing the new clause.

[Stephen Flynn]

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed. I would like press new clause 31 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Financial Services Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Stephen Flynn and John Glen

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

At this point I cannot give her chapter and verse on the exact attribution of resources to this measure, but I can look into that and come back to her.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will be brief. The Minister has made a compelling case, but perhaps not as compelling as that made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East, who made illuminating remarks on the potential price of bread, although I encourage him to go to Aldi, where he will get it for a lot cheaper than £1.10.

What is proposed here is a common-sense approach that would give the wider public confidence that the Government are taking this matter seriously, notwith- standing the Minister’s remarks thus far. In general terms, I do not think there is a huge difference between the two positions, but looking at both sides, I think the common-sense approach would be to tighten this process and make it more robust; that would provide the public with the confidence they feel they need on these matters, particularly given the scale of past scandals.

Financial Services Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Stephen Flynn and John Glen

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[John Glen]

Thank you very much. I will now let other colleagues take part.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Q Thank you, Dr Hawley, for the information you have shared so far. Can I refer you point 16 of your written submission? It says:

“However, there is no corporate offence in the FSA and it is therefore not clear that prosecutors would be able to hold companies to account were similar conduct to reoccur.”

I will be open and honest with you: I do not have a legal background, so perhaps you could elaborate on that further. Either there is the ability to do something or there is not. That ties in with the remarks about Barclays in point 21, which quotes remarks that it

“effectively removes companies with widely devolved management and functioning boards”.

The term “effectively” implies that it could or could not. Can I have a little more clarity on that point?

Dr Hawley: Yes, absolutely. We have checked that with lawyers, and it is the case currently under the Financial Services Act that if you wanted to bring a prosecution for misleading statements on benchmarks—let us hope that will not happen again because financial institutions have learned the lessons from last time—the only way that you could hold a company to account would be under the directing mind principle that I mentioned earlier. You would have to show that one of the directors knew and intended for this to occur. There is no comparative offence, as there is under the Bribery Act, of a failure to prevent misleading statements being made, for which there could be a corporate fine. That would be almost impossible to do if a bank were making misleading statements.

The Barclays judgment has made that even more difficult and narrower. Prosecutors and the Serious Fraud Office can no longer say, “We’ve got the evidence on the CEO and CFO, and we think we can prove it, so we will take this to court.” The court then turns round and says, “No, it’s not just that. You have to show that the board actually delegated authority to these people.” It set a whole new hurdle for how you hold corporates to account. What we are hearing from people is that this is going to lead to a massive decrease in corporate prosecutions, because the grounds for bringing a company to account are so narrow now that they are almost impossible. I cannot say that it would not happen, but I can say that it would be an extremely brave prosecutor to risk public money in the courts to try.