Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government, in regard to section 7 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, on what date they expect to receive the report of the Royal Trustees on the 2026 review of the Sovereign Grant; and on what date they expect that report to be laid before Parliament.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
As required by the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the next review of the Sovereign Grant is taking place this year. Further detail will be announced in due course.
The Government is committed to bringing forward legislation to reset the Grant to a lower level from 2027-28 once Buckingham Palace reservicing works are completed.
Asked by: Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Labour - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to adjust and reduce the Sovereign Grant in the next King's Speech.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
As required by the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the next review of the Sovereign Grant is taking place this year. Further detail will be announced in due course.
The Government is committed to bringing forward legislation to reset the Grant to a lower level from 2027-28 once Buckingham Palace reservicing works are completed.
Asked by: Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of Revolt being granted a banking licence on regulation and competitiveness in the fintech sector.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
Bank authorisations are a matter for the independent Prudential Regulation Authority.
As set out in the Government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy, the UK aims to be the world’s most technologically advanced global financial centre, and to remain a leading jurisdiction for Fintech firms to start up, scale and list.
The Strategy set out a comprehensive package of reforms to maintain the UK’s global leadership in Fintech. This includes creating a competitive regulatory environment by working with UK regulators to make it quicker and easier for new firms to achieve regulatory authorisation.
Asked by: Angus MacDonald (Liberal Democrat - Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what comparative assessment her Department has made of the (a) VAT Registration Threshold and (b) rate of inflation between 2014 and 2026.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
At £90,000, the UK has a higher VAT registration threshold than any EU country and the joint highest in the OECD. This reflects the Government’s approach to balance the impacts on small businesses, with the needs of the wider economy and the public finances. Such a comparatively high threshold means the majority of UK businesses are not in the VAT system at all, reducing administrative burdens and supporting growth.
Asked by: Julian Smith (Conservative - Skipton and Ripon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if she will make an assessment of the potential impact of introducing the full 20p discount to the business rates multiplier for retail, hospitality and leisure on the hospitality sector.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
The 5p reduction in the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure (RHL) multipliers is worth nearly £1 billion per year and will benefit over 750,000 properties. Unlike RHL relief, the new multipliers are permanent, giving businesses certainty and stability, and there will be no cap, meaning all qualifying properties on high streets across England will benefit.
The Government is paying for this through a high-value multiplier on the top one per cent of most expensive properties. This includes many large distribution warehouses, such as those used by online giants. The high value multiplier is 33% more than the multiplier for small RHL properties.
Legislation set the maximum reduction to 20p as the bounds within which the Government could choose to operate, rather than a commitment to reduce the multipliers by this amount.
Asked by: Julian Smith (Conservative - Skipton and Ripon)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if she will make an assessment of the potential merits of introducing the full 20p discount to the business rates multiplier for retail, hospitality and leisure.
Answered by Dan Tomlinson - Exchequer Secretary (HM Treasury)
The 5p reduction in the Retail, Hospitality and Leisure (RHL) multipliers is worth nearly £1 billion per year and will benefit over 750,000 properties. Unlike RHL relief, the new multipliers are permanent, giving businesses certainty and stability, and there will be no cap, meaning all qualifying properties on high streets across England will benefit.
The Government is paying for this through a high-value multiplier on the top one per cent of most expensive properties. This includes many large distribution warehouses, such as those used by online giants. The high value multiplier is 33% more than the multiplier for small RHL properties.
Legislation set the maximum reduction to 20p as the bounds within which the Government could choose to operate, rather than a commitment to reduce the multipliers by this amount.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what steps her Department is taking to ensure that SMEs not party to (a) NFU Mutual and (b) Bath Racecourse litigation are not permanently deprived of the right to an indemnity due to the expiration of limitation periods.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the independent regulator for financial services, sets the conduct standards required of insurance firms. This includes rules requiring insurers to handle claims fairly and promptly.
The Supreme Court published its final judgment in the FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance test case in 2021. At the time of the judgment, the FCA set out its expectation that insurers should communicate to all impacted policyholders what the judgment meant for their claim and should move quickly to resolve claims as determined by the judgment.
The FCA court case did not cover all potential issues with business interruption policies. The FCA has been clear that, in the event of further court rulings, insurers will need to consider carefully how the rulings impact claims they have already decided.
The FCA considered the issue of new ‘stop the clock’ guidance as part of its response to Stewarts LLP on 23 January. The FCA was clear that insurers must look at claims that have already been made in light of any new legal rulings to see if any action must be taken. Where no claim has been submitted, it is not clear why an insurer would not be able to rely on relevant time limits set out in the insurance policy, subject to the particular circumstances of each claim and compliance with the FCA’s broader rules.
The FCA is continuing to supervise firms to ensure they are meeting their expectations and has robust powers to take action where necessary.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of valid Covid-19 business interruption claims becoming time-barred in March 2026 on the insurance sector.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the independent regulator for financial services, sets the conduct standards required of insurance firms. This includes rules requiring insurers to handle claims fairly and promptly.
The Supreme Court published its final judgment in the FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance test case in 2021. At the time of the judgment, the FCA set out its expectation that insurers should communicate to all impacted policyholders what the judgment meant for their claim and should move quickly to resolve claims as determined by the judgment.
The FCA court case did not cover all potential issues with business interruption policies. The FCA has been clear that, in the event of further court rulings, insurers will need to consider carefully how the rulings impact claims they have already decided.
The FCA considered the issue of new ‘stop the clock’ guidance as part of its response to Stewarts LLP on 23 January. The FCA was clear that insurers must look at claims that have already been made in light of any new legal rulings to see if any action must be taken. Where no claim has been submitted, it is not clear why an insurer would not be able to rely on relevant time limits set out in the insurance policy, subject to the particular circumstances of each claim and compliance with the FCA’s broader rules.
The FCA is continuing to supervise firms to ensure they are meeting their expectations and has robust powers to take action where necessary.
Asked by: Helen Morgan (Liberal Democrat - North Shropshire)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions she has had with the FCA on stop the clock guidance and related litigation.
Answered by Lucy Rigby - Economic Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), as the independent regulator for financial services, sets the conduct standards required of insurance firms. This includes rules requiring insurers to handle claims fairly and promptly.
The Supreme Court published its final judgment in the FCA’s Business Interruption Insurance test case in 2021. At the time of the judgment, the FCA set out its expectation that insurers should communicate to all impacted policyholders what the judgment meant for their claim and should move quickly to resolve claims as determined by the judgment.
The FCA court case did not cover all potential issues with business interruption policies. The FCA has been clear that, in the event of further court rulings, insurers will need to consider carefully how the rulings impact claims they have already decided.
The FCA considered the issue of new ‘stop the clock’ guidance as part of its response to Stewarts LLP on 23 January. The FCA was clear that insurers must look at claims that have already been made in light of any new legal rulings to see if any action must be taken. Where no claim has been submitted, it is not clear why an insurer would not be able to rely on relevant time limits set out in the insurance policy, subject to the particular circumstances of each claim and compliance with the FCA’s broader rules.
The FCA is continuing to supervise firms to ensure they are meeting their expectations and has robust powers to take action where necessary.
Asked by: Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the HM Treasury:
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of fintech investment platforms on competition, costs and investment choice in the self-invested personal pension market; and what steps they are taking to support innovation in digital pension products while maintaining appropriate regulatory safeguards.
Answered by Lord Livermore - Financial Secretary (HM Treasury)
The Government has not made a formal assessment of the impact of Fintech investment platforms on competition, costs and investment choice in the self-invested personal pensions (SIPPs) market.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is the regulator responsible for the SIPPs market. The FCA regularly reviews their relevant rules and regulations to ensure they are appropriate for the current market context. This includes supporting growth and innovation while maintaining appropriate regulatory safeguards to protect consumers.
As set out in the Government’s Financial Services Growth and Competitiveness Strategy, the UK aims to be the world’s most technologically advanced global financial centre, and to remain a leading jurisdiction for Fintech firms to start up, scale and list.