Treasury Sanctions Designation: Northern Ireland-related Terrorism

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

On 3 December 2024, HM Treasury announced a sanctions designation under the Counter Terrorism (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This regime is used to target those involved in terrorist financing on UK soil. This action is the first use of HM Treasury’s sanctions power targeting an individual suspected of involvement in Northern Ireland-related terrorism.

The designation imposes an asset freeze on an individual suspected of being involved in terrorist activity by facilitating terrorism and associating with members of the New Irish Republican Army (‘New IRA’). He is further suspected of providing or assisting others in providing financial services or making available funds or economic resources for the New IRA.

This action demonstrates this Government’s commitment to protecting the peaceful consensus of the people of Northern Ireland and to upholding the principles of the Good Friday Agreement in support of the UK’s wider efforts to protect national security for all citizens and prevent terrorism.

The specific designation is:

Brian Sheridan—suspected New IRA financier who has control over Brisher Limited.

[HCWS280]

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

To be fair, my former colleague did not last quite as long as the lettuce, and the public made their judgment clear on that and many other issues at the general election. The hon. Gentleman’s point is fair, but it is not particularly relevant to the decisions he will be asked to vote on today. Hospices in his constituency will know how he votes. GPs in his constituency will know how he votes. Charities in his constituency will know how he votes. I will be interested to see whether he votes with his conscience or with the party line.

Less than one in four of the public now believe that the Government are handling the economy well. It is not just the public who have lost faith in the economic competence of His Majesty’s Treasury; it is the Prime Minister himself, who apparently on Thursday will ditch the ambition for the United Kingdom to be the fastest-growing economy in the G7, removing at a stroke one of the key planks of Labour’s economic plans. The Bill will add to that lack of faith in this Labour Government, because this measure to raise national insurance contributions directly contradicts Labour’s election promise not to increase taxes on working people.

In the election campaign, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the entire Labour Treasury team, including the Minister, repeated the phrase from their manifesto, which stated:

“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT.”

Yet today, with the election behind them, increasing taxes on working people is exactly what Labour is proposing to do.

The shadow Minister is shaking his head.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

You’re the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller]

I am terribly sorry—the Minister. He shakes his head and says that it is not true. Let me turn to one of his favourite independent economic groups, the Resolution Foundation, whose analyst James Smith said, “Even if it”—the employers national insurance change—

“doesn’t show up in pay packets from day one, it will eventually feed through to lower wages…This is definitely is a tax on working people, let’s be very clear about that.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

It is an honour to close the debate on behalf of the Government. When the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) loses his seat, he can work as my speechwriter, because he is right that I am going to say all the things he said, but I will come on to that soon.

Let me start by thanking hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. There were some powerful speeches, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). .

Before I come to the specific points raised in this debate, I want to reiterate the purpose of the Bill. Our priority in the Bill is to restore stability to our economy, repair the public finances to fix our economy, and support long-term economic growth. The Chancellor recognised that to do that, the Government needed to make difficult decisions. That is why under the measures in the Bill, employers are being asked to contribute more. First, the Bill provides for a rise in the rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%. Secondly, it provides for a decrease in the secondary threshold for employers from £9,000 per employee to £5,000. Thirdly, it provides for changes to the employment allowance, to increase it from £5,000 to £10,500, and removes the £100,000 eligibility cap, so that the vast majority of employers benefit.

The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) asked at the start of the debate where the extra money raised will go. Let me remind him that the Government uncovered a challenging fiscal and spending inheritance with £22 million of in-year pressure on public finances. We have taken difficult but necessary decisions to fix the foundations of our economy and to fix public services. The Budget provided additional day-to-day funding to stabilise and support public services. Day-to-day funding will now grow at an average of 3.3% in real terms over this year and next, compared to 0.2% under the last Government’s plans.

[Dave Doogan]

A £200 million black hole in the Scottish Government’s core finances, rising to £450 million when partner agencies are included—what kind of stability does the Minister think that will bring to public services in Scotland?

[Tulip Siddiq]

If the hon. Gentleman is patient and listens carefully to my speech, I will come on to the Scottish Government, so he does not need to worry.

The increase in employment NICs raises revenues for the NHS and increases funding for contributory benefits such as the state pension, easing wider pressures on public finances. It is part of the Government’s announcement of an additional £22.6 billion of day-to-day spending over two years for the Department of Health and Social Care, including the NHS.

[Bradley Thomas]

Can the Minister tell the House which decision was harder, giving an inflation-busting pay rise to union paymasters or cutting the winter fuel payment?

[Tulip Siddiq]

The best decision that we have ever made in government is putting money back into the pockets of working people.

Questions were raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the NHS. The Government will provide support for Departments and other public sector employers for additional ER NICs costs only. That will apply to central Government, public corporations and local government. Primary care providers—GPs, dentists, pharmacies and eyecare provider—are valued independent contractors who provide nearly £20 billion worth of NHS services. Every year we consult each sector both about what services they provide and about the money to which providers are entitled in return under their contracts. As in previous years, this issue will be dealt with as part of that process.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my earlier questions. Rather than taking with one hand and giving back with the other, would the Minister support moves to exempt all health and care providers?

[Tulip Siddiq]

The Department of Health and Social Care will confirm funding for general practice for 2025-26 as part of the usual GP contract process later in the year, through consultation with the sector. I understand the concerns about the impact on the healthcare sector, but I can assure the hon. Lady that the Department of Health will continue to engage with GPs, dentists and pharmacists as part of the usual contract process, and that changes in NICs will be taken into account in those discussions.

Let me now turn to the rant, I would say, rather than speech, from the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson). I was not quite sure what question he was getting to, but he did ask very clearly whether the Chancellor understood the impact of the economic policies that she was making, and whether she would remain in her place. Considering those questions, I wondered what he thought about economics as a whole, so I decided to look into him. Not long ago, he said:

“I have worked with Liz Truss on many occasions…I believe that her economic position…and her parliamentary experience make her the best option to lead our country.”

[Stuart Anderson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

With pleasure.

[Stuart Anderson]

I stand by the comments that I made. [Interruption.] I do. I fundamentally believe that Liz Truss would be a better Prime Minister than the one we have now.

[Tulip Siddiq]

If you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that a lettuce would have better judgment.

I turn to the devolved Governments. The Government will provide Departments and other public sector employers with support for additional ER NICs costs only. The funding will be allocated to Departments, with the Barnett formula applying in the usual way. The overall outcome of the Barnett formula is that all the devolved Governments will receive at least 20% more funding per person than the equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. The Scottish Government will receive £47.7 billion in 2025-26, including an additional £3.4 billion through the operation of the Barnett formula. The Welsh Government will receive £21 billion in 2025-26, including an additional £1.7 billion through the operation of the Barnett formula.

[Dave Doogan]

The Minister is being very generous in taking a second intervention from me. I realise that the bar for credibility in the Treasury is very low right now, but she hoots and toots about the level of the block grant for the Scottish Government. In what universe does the block grant go down year on year? Of course it is higher than in previous years. Has she got the faintest idea how it works?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I do have the faintest idea how it works, which is why I am on this side of the House and the hon. Gentleman is on that side. That is why I am a Treasury Minister and he is not, and probably never will be.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke about hospitality. Without any Government intervention, retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have ended entirely in April 2025, creating a cliff edge for business. [Interruption.] I know the truth hurts, which is why the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. Our Government have decided to offer a 40% discount to RHL properties by introducing a cash cap of £110,000 per business in 2025-26, and we have frozen the small business multiplier. This package is worth over £1.6 billion in 2025-26 and is aimed at supporting the most vulnerable businesses, ensuring that over 250,000 RHL properties receive the full 40% support.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I am reluctant to do so, but I will.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the Minister for giving way. The OBR had to issue a correction to table 3.2 in chapter 3 of its report. Originally, there was RDEL compensation for public sector employees and for adult social care. The correction was made to reduce the sums by £800 million, typically per year, for RDEL compensation just for public sector organisations. Why did the correction need to be made, when was it made, and why was the OBR told so late that social care was not getting the support that it clearly needs?

[Tulip Siddiq]

As far as I am concerned, the current numbers are the correct ones.

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

The Minister mentions business rates and the small business multiplier. Will she confirm the continuation of small business rates relief for the rest of this Parliament?

[Tulip Siddiq]

That is under review, and we will come back to the hon. Gentleman soon.

I turn to the questions from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) about childcare providers. She may be aware that I served on the shadow Education team for a long time. I realise the value of early years providers, and I know that they drive economic growth and break down barriers to opportunity. We have committed to making childcare more affordable and more accessible, which is why we promised in our manifesto to deliver the expansion of Government-funded childcare for working parents, and to open 3,000 new or expanded nurseries by upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector. However, I say to the hon. Member that the Government inherited the worst economic circumstances since the second world war, and our first step must be to fix the foundations of our economy. In spite of the challenges, the Chancellor announced in her Budget significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver Government-funded childcare places, meaning that the total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26.

I am grateful to have had this opportunity to respond to the questions that have been raised today. I also want to thank my officials for their work on bringing the Bill to the House. Before I finish, however, I want to answer a question that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) asked in his speech: what is the mission of this Government? Well, let me tell him. This Government’s mission is economic stability, restoring our public services, a thriving workplace, making sure that we have a strong education system and strong public services, putting more money in working people’s pockets, and fixing the foundations of our economy. The mission is to rebuild Britain. The Conservatives left a mess, and we will do a better job than them. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

I read that report with great interest and have a lot of sympathy for those who suffered. However, a lot of the incidents described happened a very long time ago. The FCA has made substantial changes in response to those experiences. That does not mean the end of our engagement with the FCA, but we are continuing to hold it to account and it has made changes since the report came to light.

[Bob Blackman]

The FCA has been completely defensive in response to the report. Since the historical elements quoted by the FCA, 13 major scandals have erupted. I will not intrude on your time, Mr Speaker, because I am sure that you would not want me to list them all, but Woodford Equity, car finance and others have come to light since the details came out. Clearly, there is a need to fundamentally reform the FCA so that victims of scandals are properly compensated and the industry is properly regulated in the way that we would all like to see.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I understand that lots of people have suffered, as the report explains, which I said I have read. However, I do have confidence in the FCA; I have sent it remit letters outlining what we expect it to do to deliver on its objectives. The FCA is looking at certain things such as its rulebook, which we think is too extensive, to look at rules that no longer need to be applied but, overall, we are working with the FCA closely and we believe that it is trying its best. It is not possible to have a system where nothing ever goes wrong, but we are trying to minimise that and ensure that there is consumer protection. The FCA knows that we are working together to deliver on its objectives.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of funding for the Money and Pensions Service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

WealthTek was placed into administration by the Financial Conduct Authority after losing £80 million of its clients’ money. FCA-appointed administrators are now deducting fees from victims’ compensation. My constituents Dominic Knights and his wife have between them lost thousands of pounds. What is the Treasury doing to safeguard the £85,000 compensation limit?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

The FCA is held to account by the Government and Parliament, but Treasury Ministers cannot comment on individual cases, and the Treasury has no stake in the operational issues of the FCA. I am very happy to meet with the right hon. Lady and the FCA to discuss that matter, but let me be clear: the FCA is an independent regulator.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

T9.   What measures are the Government taking to support small independent retail businesses in town centres such as mine in Mansfield, and will the Chancellor join me in congratulating Mansfield business improvement district on its successful renewal ballot, which was announced last Friday?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend will know that there is a long-standing debate about the relationship between financial and real economy growth, on which there is no consensus. The Government are clear that we see the financial services sector as a key part of our future economic success. The growth of the UK economy and our wider missions will not be achieved if we do not champion one of our biggest assets—the growth of the UK’s financial services sector—and mobilise it towards achieving those goals.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Achieving for Children is the arm’s length body of Richmond council that delivers its vital children’s services, yet because of the rise in employer’s national insurance, it now faces a staggering bill of £588,000 because the employees are not directly employed by Richmond council. When the Chancellor looks at her local government settlement, will she build in reimbursement for councils such as Richmond, or indeed exempt arm’s length bodies?

Draft Scottish Rates of Income Tax (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 General Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Scottish Rates of Income Tax (Consequential Amendments) Order 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Sir Roger. The draft order enables the calculation of deficiency relief to take account of the introduction of the Scottish advanced rate of income tax. Deficiency relief reduces the tax that some individuals are required to pay when certain life insurance policies come to an end. It applies in unusual circumstances in which the policyholder would otherwise be taxed on more than the actual economic gain they made on the policy. That might include when a tax charge arose on an earlier withdrawal.

On 22 February this year, the Scottish Parliament introduced the new Scottish advanced rate income tax band. That means that, from 6 April 2024, the former Scottish higher rate income tax band was split into the Scottish higher rate and the Scottish advanced rate income tax bands. The current deficiency relief rules do not take account of the new tax band. This reduces the amount of deficiency relief available to a small number of Scottish taxpayers from 6 April 2024.

The order applies from 6 April 2024, and ensures that the new Scottish advanced rate of income tax can be included in the calculation of deficiency relief. At the same time, the Government are taking the opportunity to simplify the wording of the legislation. The order ensures that the calculation of deficiency relief takes account of the new Scottish advanced rate of income tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his co-operation and for commenting on the lateness of some of the people behind me—I am sure that the Whip will have taken notice of that, but not me, because that is not my job.

Only Scottish taxpayers who are entitled to deficiency relief and who pay tax at the Scottish advanced rate of income tax will be affected. The measure only affects Scottish taxpayers who claim deficiency relief and whose tax is taxable at the Scottish advanced rate of income tax. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an absolute number, but the criteria apply to people whose income is taxable at the Scottish advanced rate of income tax, as he referenced.

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that guidance is available. The “Insurance Policyholder Taxation Manual” from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs contains guidance on deficiency relief. It will be updated to reflect these changes, so people can refer to that, and it is available on gov.uk.

I will answer a question about the order applying retrospectively, because I think the hon. Gentleman alluded to that. The Scottish advanced rate of income tax applies from 6 April 2024, but applying these provisions from the state ensures that no taxpayers are adversely affected. I hope that those answers are satisfactory—[Interruption.] I am being handed another piece of paper, which I will read. Oh, the number affected is fewer than 10, and the Exchequer impact is less than £5 million per annum. I hope that satisfies him.

This order ensures that the calculation of deficiency relief takes account of the new Scottish advanced rate of income tax. I am glad that the Opposition will not oppose it and are in agreement. I commend the changes to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Finance Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

Just as it was an honour to close the Budget debate on behalf of the Government, it is an honour to close the debate on Second Reading of the Finance Bill—the first Finance Bill by a Labour Government in 14 years. I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and look forward to hearing further contributions during the Committee of the whole House and the Bill’s remaining passages, alongside the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.

Before I address the numerous points raised in the debate, it is worth reflecting briefly on the points made by the Exchequer Secretary in his opening remarks on what the Bill will achieve. The Bill legislates for key measures in the Budget—a Budget in which we took tough decisions on tax, spending and welfare to restore Britain’s economic stability. The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments and starts the work of moving to a fairer, more sustainable tax system while raising the revenue needed to adequately fund our public services. The Government have taken a balanced approach that will create a fairer system while still promoting growth and wealth creation.

We are adjusting the rate of capital gains tax, for example —a tax paid by fewer than 1% of adults every year—to raise some of that revenue. Although rates have increased, the Government will maintain the UK’s position as having the lowest CGT of any European G7 economy. There are no changes to CGT rates on property or the annual exempt allowance, and there is a phased increase to business asset disposal relief, to give entrepreneurs time to adjust. That is just one of the many measures in the Bill that will move us to a fairer system, where those who can pay do pay. [Interruption.] I will get on to farmers, hon. Members will be pleased to know.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on an excellent maiden speech. She is absolutely an inspiration to her teenage daughter, but also to young women across the country, including my daughter. I thank her for that. We are very pleased to have her. We need more people with careers in tech in the House. She is very welcome.

We also heard powerful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), for Vale of Glamorgan (Kanishka Narayan), for Makerfield (Josh Simons) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for his play on words—as an English graduate, I always enjoy that, and I thought he was excellent.

Hon. Members have extensively discussed the agricultural property relief changes announced in the Budget, and will note that they are not included in the Bill. That is because the Government are committed to technical consultation on tax legislation. We feel it is important to get complex legislation right, and to give businesses and those affected by tax changes the certainty that they need ahead of the measures coming into force. The Government will publish draft legislation on this measure before legislating for it in a future Finance Bill.

[Dr Evans]

I am grateful to the Minister for making that point. Is there a timetable attached to that that she could set out to this House? Many businesses will have listened to that statement, and will want to know exactly when they need to make their business decisions.

[Tulip Siddiq]

We will set out plans in due course. The Bill does, however, extend the scope of agricultural property relief from 6 April 2025 to land managed under certain environmental agreements. That supports the UK Government’s wider environmental objective of supporting farmers and land managers so that they can deliver, alongside food production, significant and important outcomes for the climate and environment. The measure is intended to prevent the loss of APR being a barrier to the involvement of agricultural landowners and farmers in land use change under environmental agreements including, but not limited to, the environmental land management schemes in England and equivalent schemes elsewhere in the UK.

I want to address something the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) talked about: family farms. This is not in the Finance Bill, but I will still refer to it. Individuals can pass on a sum of up to £325,000 inheritance tax-free; £500,000 if that includes a residence being passed to a direct descendent; and £1 million when a tax-free allowance is passed to a surviving spouse or civil partner. There is also a full exemption from inheritance tax when passing assets to a spouse or civil partner.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg for your patience as I retread some of the remarks I made earlier. It is my view that the family farm tax gives us the worst of both worlds at the moment. It does not prevent equity companies from buying up land, but it does treat family farms as collateral damage. I urge her to think again on this measure and think about introducing a genuine family farm test. If she were to do that, she would certainly have the Liberal Democrats’ support.

[Tulip Siddiq]

It was a difficult decision, and I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, but the reforms to agricultural property relief mean that farmers can access 100% relief for the first £1 million and 50% relief thereafter, meaning an effective 20% tax rate. It was a difficult decision, but we had to do it to fund public services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about tax avoidance and fraud. To stop people taking unfair advantage of our system, the Government announced in the Budget the most ambitious ever package to close the tax gap, raising £6.5 billion in additional tax revenue per year by 2029-30.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken enough times in the debate, so I will not be taking yet another intervention from him.

The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) raised questions about SMEs and high streets. The Government have been absolutely clear that we need to take difficult decisions to deliver long-term stability and growth, and that stabilising public finances is the only way to create long-term stability in which businesses can thrive. But we recognise the need to protect small employers, which is why we have more than doubled employment allowance—she may like to know that—meaning that half of businesses with mixed liabilities will either gain or see no change at all next year.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raised questions about VAT on private schools hitting SEND pupils. To protect pupils with special educational needs and disabilities who can only have their needs met in a private school, the local authorities and devolved Governments that fund those places will be compensated for the VAT they are charged on those pupils’ fees. I hope that reassures him.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised a point about faith schools. Of course the Government value parental choice and recognise that some people want their children to be educated in a school with a particular faith ethos. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary met the Partnerships for Jewish Schools and the Association of Muslim Schools during the consultation period on this policy. To ensure fairness and consistency between all schools that charge fees, faith schools will remain in the scope of the policy. It is worth noting for the right hon. Member that some faith schools are likely to be less impacted by the policy if some of their income is derived from voluntary donations from the community, because donations that are freely given and for which there is no obligation are outside the scope of VAT. As such, not all the income that small faith schools receive will necessarily be subject to VAT. I hope that reassures him a bit.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to ask her specifically about what she just said about special schools still getting funding. Is she aware that many parents of children with special educational needs choose to send their children to special schools even though they do not have education, health and care plans, so do not have funding through local authorities and so will still be affected by this measure? I wonder what she thinks about that.

[Tulip Siddiq]

My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary says that he will write to the hon. Lady about this, but we note the points that she has made, and we are looking into them.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked about oil and gas investment. We recognise that oil and gas will continue to have a role in the energy mix during the transition, but we need to drive public and private investment towards cleaner energy. The money raised by these changes will contribute to public investment while the sector continues to benefit from £84.25 in relief for every £100 of private investment. To reflect our commitment to facilitating cleaner home-grown energy, the Government have confirmed that the sector will continue to benefit from a decarbonisation investment allowance with a value similar to the relief that it received prior to the November energy profits levy rate increases.

I end by saying that the Bill delivers on key manifesto commitments from this Labour Government. It provides stability, it supports businesses, and it moves us to a fairer, more sustainable tax system. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) Regulations 2024

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 General Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ombudsman Scheme) (Fees) Regulations 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. These regulations are made under powers in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. The Committee may be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised this statutory instrument as an instrument of interest in its second report, which was published on 5 September.

This instrument will enable the Financial Ombudsman Service—the FOS, as it is commonly known—to charge case fees to claims management companies and relevant legal professionals when they bring cases to the FOS on behalf of complainants. The FOS enables consumers and financial services firms to resolve disputes without having to go through the courts, which can be expensive and time consuming for both parties. To deliver a service that is cost-free to consumers, the FOS is funded by a combination of case fees paid by firms subject to complaints and an annual levy on industry. The FOS is designed to be an accessible service that consumers can use for free, and the majority of consumers raise their complaints directly with the FOS.

However, some consumers choose to use claims management companies or legal professionals to bring claims to FOS on their behalf. Collectively, they are known as professional representatives. These professional representatives normally take a cut of any compensation awarded as payment for their services. This payment can be as much as 30% of the compensation awarded to a consumer. Currently, while these professional representatives can make money from bringing a case to the FOS, they cannot be charged for doing so.

Many of these professional representatives act responsibly, but there is evidence that some are taking advantage of the cost-free nature of the service that the FOS provides. Rather than properly assessing complaints and taking forward those with merit, these representatives submit large numbers of complaints that are poorly evidenced. This behaviour is negatively impacting the ability of the FOS to promptly resolve other consumer complaints. As firms are required to pay a case fee of £650 regardless of whether or not a complaint is upheld against them, this practice also has significant costs for industry.

Firms subject to large numbers of complaints from professional representatives can face significant bills in case fees, despite not being found to have committed any wrongdoing at all. The Government have also noted concerns that firms experiencing this treatment might feel pressured into settling claims early. In order to reduce the overall cost to a firm, they may simply offer to settle for an amount below the £650 case fee, even where they feel that the claim itself is without merit.

In order to address those exploitative practices, the regulations will enable the FOS to charge a case fee to professional representatives for bringing complaints on behalf of claimants. This will ensure that there is a financial incentive for those professional representatives to carefully consider the merits of any cases that they are bringing. There will now be a cost to flooding the Financial Conduct Authority with templated complaints that have a low chance of success. Charities bringing complaints on behalf of consumers are not included in the instrument and will therefore not be charged by the FOS. Of course, the FOS remains completely free for consumers to access directly. The FOS will be responsible for determining exactly who is charged and any level of fee. This is in line with how the system already works for financial services firms subject to complaints.

In anticipation of this instrument, the FOS consulted on its proposed detailed approach to charging fees to professional representatives. It published a statement on 15 November detailing the feedback it had received to the consultation, and its initial response. In that feedback statement, subject to Parliament approving this instrument, the FOS proposes that professional representatives will be charged a fee of £250 for each case they bring. When the FOS finds in favour of the claimant represented by the professional representative, the fee will be reduced to just £75. In addition, each professional representative will not be charged for the first 10 cases that they bring each year. In that way, we hope, the FOS has sought to disincentivise bad behaviour while ensuring minimal impact on those professional representatives bringing cases with merit.

If this instrument is approved, the FOS will confirm its final plans, having considered the responses to its consultation. The approach taken through this SI ensures that the FOS will remain cost-free to consumers while ensuring that the poor behaviour of some professional representatives does not undermine the ability of the FOS to deal with consumer complaints properly. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the shadow Minister for his support so far on all the SIs we have debated; long may it continue, but I have a feeling we may disagree on some things in the future. There was cross-party support for the enabling power behind the instrument when it was debated during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. He will remember that at the time, I also supported the then Government, because a lot of the legislation was fit and right for the sector.

We are committed to tackling poor behaviour from professional representatives, as were the previous Government. We want to ensure that the FOS can focus on promptly resolving consumer complaints, as the shadow Minister said, and to reduce the impact of complaints on financial services firms when they are not appropriate.

The shadow Minister asked how long it will take the FOS to implement these rules and how we will monitor them. If the SI is approved, we expect that the FOS will shortly announce when it will start to charge fees. We will then work closely with the FOS and the FCA to progress that important work. There is not really a deadline on it; we just have to see how it progresses after the SI. I guess those organisations are waiting for us to approve the SI before they take on the work, but as he can imagine, we work closely with the FCA and the FOS to monitor progress.

I am afraid I will have to come back to the shadow Minister on his technical question, because I am not sure that we have any answers. It looks like my officials want me to write to him, if that is okay.

I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft regulations. They may sound simple, but they will have a huge impact on people bringing complaints and how much that costs them. They will play an important role in ensuring that the FOS can properly focus on resolving consumer complaints, a lot of which will come from people who live in our constituencies, and reduce the impact of spurious complaints on financial services firms.

I thank all hon. Members for supporting me and for turning up on a Monday evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on what remains a very important and pressing issue. As Ukraine enters yet another difficult winter, I am proud of the consistent support that this Government have shown through not just our £2.26 billion ERA contribution, but the long-term commitments we have made to supporting Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence.

I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, along with my hon. Friends the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) in saying how proud I am that there is unity across the House in standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at this very difficult time. This is a complex issue, and I will try to answer the questions posed by the Opposition and my hon. Friends. If I have missed out anything, I am happy to write to Members.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of the Bill, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for making such a powerful maiden speech. I think I am right in saying that her late mother Margaret, David, Martin and all her children would be extremely proud of their extraordinary daughter, mother, stepmother and wife. I very much welcome this “vicious dictator” to the House. We need more of them in the women’s parliamentary Labour party, so I am pleased to have her here.

The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire asked about the timing of the release of the funds. We intend to begin spending the funds early next year to ensure that the funding supports our Ukrainian allies as soon as possible. We intend to do so in three equal tranches over three financial years, starting in 2024-25, and the G7 has agreed that all ERA funds will be given out by the end of 2027. He also asked about how the UK will be repaid. We are providing the funding as part of the wider G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loan initiative, which means that the UK will be repaid via the extraordinary profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU. The EU has already enacted the necessary regulations to operationalise the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, which will distribute the profits. That came into effect on 29 October, as he is probably aware.

The hon. Member asked about what will happen to the UK if the loan is not repaid. The repayment will rely on profits continuing to flow from immobilised RSAs into the EU over multiple years. The UK and the wider G7 have committed to ensuring that Russian sovereign assets remain immobilised across our jurisdictions until Russia ceases its war of aggression and pays for the damage that it has caused to Ukraine, and G7 lenders have worked closely together to design the ERA in a way that allows for repayment in a scenario in which profits cease and Russia pays Ukraine. I hope that answers his question, but I can write to him if he wants more detail.

On NATO’s spending target, there is a clear commitment from the Government to spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence, which has categorically not changed. The hon. Member will have seen in our manifesto that we will set up a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and this will be done at a future fiscal event.

The hon. Member asked about the total value of assets and private assets. Between February 2022 and October 2023, £22.7 billion-worth of Russian assets were frozen due to UK financial sanctions regulations—a marked increase on the figure of £18.39 billion that was provided in the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s annual report in 2021-22. OFSI is currently analysing data on immobilised assets, and on the type and value of the assets.

Like many Members, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked about the involvement of the ERA in asset seizure. I have to make it clear that the G7’s ERA scheme does not represent the seizure of Russian sovereign assets in any way; it is about using the extraordinary profits that the EU has set aside to pay a series of loans to Ukraine. He and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked about seizing Russian sovereign assets in the UK. Russia’s obligation under international law is clear: it must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The G7 agreement to use the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets for the loan is an important step towards ensuring that Russia pays. Although we continue to consider all lawful avenues by which Russia is made to meet its obligation to Ukraine under international law, it is important that the UK and the G7 remain focused on delivering the ERA and the benefit that it will give to Ukraine right now, because we are very conscious of the situation in which the country finds itself.

A few other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), asked about the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC. The Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend might know that the proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money, but this is something that we are working on and we are trying to move it along as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) asked whether this was an unlimited resource loan. The negotiations remain ongoing on the details of the loan terms, but I am focused on ensuring that there is limited impact on Ukraine’s balance sheet. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) talked about the implications of the Trump victory for Ukraine. I cannot speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump may make, but we have welcomed bipartisan US support for Ukraine, which has been key in the international effort. I feel that Ukraine’s security is vital for global security. If there are any other questions that I have not answered, I will write to Members. I am conscious of the time and I want to finish by thanking hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions to the debate.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard her say that at this stage the Government intend to work on the profits rather than the seized assets themselves, but will she undertake to talk to ministerial colleagues in Finland, Czechia and Estonia to find out how they have gone about seizing and using confiscated assets?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially with regard to other countries, and I am happy to have conversations with ministerial colleagues across different countries and find out what they are doing. This is our position for now, but this is an ongoing situation and things will move. I am happy to speak to Ministers from different countries who are using assets differently.

The ERA is an innovative scheme. It will ensure that Ukraine receives vital support throughout 2025 and beyond. It will take the money generated from Russian sovereign assets and use it to support Ukraine in the best possible way. This is further proof for us that the G7’s support for Ukraine will not falter, and that the UK will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in thanking the people of our country for all the support that they have shown Ukraine. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me for one minute while I say that my own constituents of Hampstead and Highgate have opened their doors for Ukrainian refugees, giving them their homes, community spaces and education spaces, and I particularly pay tribute to my local synagogue, South Hampstead synagogue, which is providing free English lessons for Ukrainian refugees. I was very pleased to meet those people in Parliament last week.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Treasury or Secretary of State for the purpose of providing loans or other financial assistance to, or for the benefit of, the government of Ukraine as a result of—

(a) the arrangements described as the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans for Ukraine announced on 14 June 2024 at the G7 summit in Apulia in Italy, or

(b) any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace those arrangements.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Ordered,

That Marie Goldman, Leigh Ingham, Gordon McKee, Charlotte Nichols and Jesse Norman be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—(Lucy Powell.)

House of Commons Members’ Fund

Ordered,

That Holly Lynch, Sir Charles Walker and Peter Grant be removed as Trustees of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Mark Tami, Chris Elmore and Dr Danny Chambers be appointed as Trustees in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016.—(Lucy Powell.)

Draft Collective Investment Schemes (Temporary Recognition) and Central Counterparties (Transitional Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Insurance Distribution (Regulated Activities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 General Committees

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Collective Investment Schemes (Temporary Recognition) and Central Counterparties (Transitional Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Insurance Distribution (Regulated Activities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.

[Tulip Siddiq]

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

The regulations we are introducing today will ensure that the regulatory framework for financial services is aligned with the UK’s needs following our exit from the European Union. They ensure that UK businesses and individuals can continue to access the products and services that they need even when these originate from outside the UK and that UK authorities have appropriate control over which firms can access our markets. They also ensure that the statute book is clear, comprehensive and relevant to our domestic market.

First, let me turn to the Collective Investment Schemes (Temporary Recognition) and Central Counterparties (Transitional Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2024. UK investors and firms rely on a wide range of financial products and services to meet their needs, ranging from individuals saving for a rainy day, all the way to multinational corporations needing to settle multimillion-pound transactions. In a highly international industry, many of these products and services originate from outside the UK. Ensuring continued access for UK investors and businesses is therefore crucial to the continued functioning of our economy.

This instrument deals with two such areas of global market access—the ability of collective investment schemes or funds to market to UK retail investors and the ability of overseas central counterparties to provide services to UK firms. I will speak to each of these areas in turn.

The Government previously introduced a new route for overseas funds to become recognised for marketing to UK investors—the overseas funds regime, which the Committee will be familiar with. In July 2024, the first equivalence decision under that regime came into force. This means that certain retail schemes from the European economic area will be able to market to UK investors on an ongoing basis.

Funds from the EEA had been able to passport freely into the UK prior to the UK’s exit from the European Union and a temporary regime was introduced to allow those funds to continue doing so. These temporary arrangements will end in December 2025. The overseas funds regime represents a more permanent solution. However, it will take time to transition the more than 8,000 funds with temporary access to the new regime. Therefore, this instrument extends the temporary regime for a further year, until 2026, to allow for a smooth transition and to avoid any cliff-edge risks.

It is important that the temporary regime continues to work as intended for those funds still using it, namely those funds not in scope of the Government’s equivalence decision. At the same time, we are conscious that the temporary regime should wind down in an orderly fashion. This means that funds in scope of the equivalence decision should be directed towards the overseas funds regime. If they fail to apply or become recognised under that route, they should lose their ability to market freely to UK investors. The instrument also makes technical changes to ensure that is the case, and that sub-funds within the temporary regime are treated appropriately depending on their characteristics.

The two changes combine to ensure that the Government’s decision under the overseas funds regime and the transition from the temporary arrangements will be implemented smoothly, without unintended consequences for investors or fund operators.

Let me turn to the second set of changes delivered by this statutory instrument in relation to overseas central counterparties. Central counterparties, or CCPs, are vitally important market infrastructure firms that help make markets safer and more efficient. They sit between the buyers and sellers of certain financial instruments, providing assurance that contractual obligations will be fulfilled. The process of transacting through a CCP is known as “clearing”.

During EU exit, the Government set up the temporary recognition regime, or TRR, which allowed overseas CCPs that were recognised by the EU before the end of the transition period, and therefore had market access to the UK, to continue to provide services to UK firms. This allowed UK authorities the time to start putting in place longer-term market access arrangements for those overseas CCPs after EU exit.

The TRR has largely functioned well and ensured that EU exit did not disrupt the provision of clearing services into the UK. However, as it stands right now, a CCP within the TRR automatically loses its right to remain in the regime if its EU recognition is withdrawn. This has meant that, since EU exit, several CCPs have exited the TRR, and moved into the UK’s accompanying “run-off regime”, as a result of decisions taken by authorities outside the UK.

There are a variety of circumstances that could lead to EU authorities withdrawing EU recognition from overseas CCPs, but these circumstances may not always be relevant to the UK. For instance, EU recognition has previously been withdrawn because co-operation arrangements have not been agreed between the European Securities and Markets Authority and the relevant national regulator of the overseas CCP. This statutory instrument therefore removes continued EU recognition as a condition for remaining in the TRR. This, combined with the Bank’s continued ability to move a CCP out of the TRR for financial stability reasons, ensures that our UK authorities have appropriate control over which overseas CCPs can provide services to UK firms.

I now turn to the Insurance Distribution (Regulated Activities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024. The UK’s financial services sector is central to growing growth in the UK economy, as we discussed in the Chamber yesterday, and insurance is a fundamental contributor. Effective and proportionate regulation is key to this, we believe, and therefore we must ensure that domestic regulation is clear and not burdensome to understand. This statutory instrument makes technical legislative changes that remove or amend references to insurance-related EU directives. It is no longer necessary to refer to them now that the UK is not part of the EU and now that the regulatory regime for insurance distribution is set out entirely in UK law and regulator rules.

This instrument amends the Terrorism Act 2000, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. It replaces insurance distribution directive-related references with references to the equivalent provisions in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001. This instrument makes similar amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001 itself. It also changes the monetary threshold in article 72B of that order below which a person whose main business is not insurance distribution is excluded from regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority. This instrument provides that the threshold will now be denominated in sterling rather than euro. The scope of the exclusion on the distribution of sterling-denominated insurance policies will no longer be dependent on changing exchange rates.

Finally, this instrument removes references to regulations made under the insurance distribution directive from the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Qualifying Provisions) Order 2013. These provisions gave the Financial Conduct Authority powers to investigate and remedy breaches relating to the insurance distribution directive —powers which are no longer required now that the directive no longer applies in the UK. The amendments made by this instrument may be technical, but they are important in bringing the statute book up to date. Failing to make them could cause confusion as to the relevance of EU law to domestic regulation.

In closing, these statutory instruments make mostly technical changes, which are necessary to ensure that our statute book remains up to date and adequately reflects the UK’s exit from the EU. They also make important provision regarding the provision of services into the UK, either by ensuring that UK firms and investors can access the products and services that best suit their needs, or by giving UK authorities appropriate control over when certain services can be provided. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting these regulations, and I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his points. He knows this area well and I am glad he supports the work that we are doing. We will keep an eye on the timeline, as he says, but regulatory and supervisory frameworks of the UK and other jurisdictions can change over time, so it is important that the Government monitor that; we will be keeping an eye on it. We want to ensure that the changes that happen in the UK and regimes in the EU and other overseas regimes are compatible with the existing equivalence determinations with an outcomes-based approach. So he is right to say it is important for the growth of the financial services sector. I have already taken proportionate steps to monitor any changes over the timeframe pertinent to existing equivalence determinations, but I will keep an eye on the deadline and the wider growth. The FCA has made the process very clear for funds, and it is working closely with the firms as well.

Further exact timings can be found on the FCA’s website. I am also happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if he would like. All UK equivalence decisions are taken on their own merits, following a technical, outcomes-based assessment of the other country or territory’s regulatory and supervisory regime. So the Government will make equivalence decisions when it is in the UK’s interests to make them—I am sure he is aware of that—but any decisions regarding the granting of equivalence decisions for the UK are a matter for the European Commission. However, I did meet Commissioner McGuinness, the outgoing Commissioner, and I have plans in the diary to meet the new Commissioner. I will raise this subject when I go, because I do think it is important, for the growth of financial services, as the hon. Gentleman says, and for the wider economy.

I hope you found the debate informative, Mr Efford, and I hope hon. Members will join me in supporting the regulations.

[The Chair]

I was hanging on your every word.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT INSURANCE DISTRIBUTION (REGULATED ACTIVITIES AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) REGULATIONS 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Insurance Distribution (Regulated Activities and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024.—(Tulip Siddiq.)

Government Debt Issuance Pilot: Distributed Ledger Technology

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on Thursday 14 November at Mansion House that the Government intend to launch a pilot digital gilt instrument (DIGIT), using distributed ledger technology.

Distributed ledger technology (DLT) refers to a variety of technologies characterised by their use of networks of ledgers that update and synchronise simultaneously. DLT has the exciting potential in the long term to make transactions more efficient. DLT also brings other benefits across markets, such as automation, greater resilience, and transparency.

The Government’s intention is to work with industry to test this new technology across the life cycle of a Government debt instrument. This will enable the Government to explore the potential benefits that DLT could bring to the debt issuance process, as well as stimulate the wider development of DLT platforms and infrastructures across UK capital markets.

This issuance will support the Government’s commitment to maintaining the UK as a world leading and global financial centre. DLT is being explored with increasing ambition by other financial centres and there is potential for significant growth in the use and exchange of digital assets in the coming years. The Government acting now will help position both itself and the UK market to adapt to these changes.

This pilot aims to issue a digital bond with similar features to a conventional gilt. It will utilise the digital securities sandbox (DSS), which opened for applications in September 2024. The DSS provides a regulatory environment through which firms can use DLT to create, trade and administer securities, while being supervised by the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority. It allows market participants to experiment with DLT-based market infrastructures in a controlled and monitored setting, ensuring that any potential risks are managed while fostering innovation.

The pilot is experimental in nature and, therefore, will sit outside of and be separate from the Debt Management Office’s gilt and Treasury bill operations. This will ensure that the pilot will be independent of our world-class debt management programme.

The Government will engage with the sector in the new year on what an issuance could look like and what technology options are available to facilitate an issuance.

[HCWS228]

NatWest Group: Government Shareholding

Tulip Siddiq Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Written Statements

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

I would like to update the House on the disposal of £1 billion-worth of Government-owned NatWest Group—formerly Royal Bank of Scotland—shares, representing approximately 3.2% of the company, by way of a directed buyback transaction on 11 November 2024.

The Government’s remaining shareholding represents approximately 11.4% of voting rights in the company, which demonstrates the continued progress being made towards the Government’s intention to return their shareholding in NatWest to private ownership by 2025-26.

Rationale

The Government are committed to returning NatWest to full private ownership, given that the original policy objective for the intervention in NatWest—to preserve financial and economic stability at a time of crisis—has long been achieved. The Government only conduct sales of NatWest shares when it represents value for money to do so and market conditions allow.

Format and timing

The Government, supported by advice from UK Government Investments, concluded that selling shares to NatWest, in a single bilateral transaction, represented value for money.

Share buybacks are a common practice undertaken by companies looking to efficiently deploy their excess capital. Following approval of amendments to the buyback contract between HM Treasury and NatWest by non-Government shareholders at the 2024 NatWest annual general meeting, the bank is now able to purchase up to 15% of its share capital from HMT on a rolling 12-month basis. This is the fifth sale of shares via an off-market share sale directly to the company.

The sale concluded on 11 November 2024, with NatWest purchasing a limited number of its Government-owned shares. A total of approximately 262.6 million shares—around 3.2% of the bank—were sold at the 8 November closing price of 380.8p per share. The reduction in the Government’s shareholding is less than the percentage sold following the cancellation of shares by NatWest. Following this transaction, the Government’s shareholding stands at approximately 11.4%.

Details of the sale are summarised below: