Sale of Government-owned NWG Shares

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Written Statements

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

I can today inform the House of the disposal of £1.1 billion worth of Government-owned NatWest Group plc—NWG, formerly Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS—shares, representing 5% of the company, by way of an overnight sale via a competitive accelerated book build—ABB—to institutional investors. The Government’s remaining shareholding represents 54.8% of the company.

Rationale

It is Government policy that where a Government asset no longer serves a public policy purpose, the Government may choose to sell that asset, subject to being able to achieve value for money. This frees up public resource which can be deployed to achieve other public policy objectives.

The Government are committed to returning NWG to full private ownership, given that the original policy objective for the intervention in NWG—to preserve financial and economic stability at a time of crisis—has long been achieved. The Government only conducts sales of NWG shares when it represents value for money to do so and market conditions allow. This sale represents a further step forward for Government in exiting the assets acquired as a result of the 2007 to 2008 financial crisis.

Format and Timing

The Government, supported by advice from UK Government Investments (UKGI), concluded that selling shares by way of a competitive ABB process to institutional investors represented value for money for the taxpayer. The sale involved wall-crossing, an established market procedure designed to improve the chances of reaching the widest possible range of investors, executing successfully and achieving the best price for the taxpayer. Wall-crossing is commonly used in transactions of this sort and involves contacting a number of institutional investors hours before the transaction launch on a confidential basis to give them more time to consider participating in the sale and to provide UKGI with feedback which can be used to optimise the offering. The institutions were selected on the basis of objective criteria and do not receive preferential treatment in the allocation. UKGI intends to keep disposal options under review and will continue to consider further transaction options that achieve value for money for the taxpayer.

ABBs are a well-established method of returning Government-owned shares to private ownership, while protecting value for the taxpayer. The first two sales of NWG shares were completed by way of ABBs—in August 2015 and June 2018, and this method was also used in the sell-down of the Government’s stake in Lloyds Banking Group.

This is the fourth sale of NWG shares undertaken by the Government, following previous disposals in August 2015, June 2018 and March 2021.

The sale concluded on 11 May 2021, with institutional investors purchasing a limited number of Government owned shares. A total of 580 million shares—5% of the bank—were sold at the price of 190p per share. This represented a 3.6% discount to the 10 May 2021 closing price of 197.05p. A small discount to market price is necessary and expected in a market facing the sale of such a large volume of shares overnight. UKGI’s view, having taken advice from their privatisation adviser, Goldman Sachs, and their capital markets adviser, Rothschild & Co, is that the final price achieved in the transaction represents fair value, based on the current and future prospects of NWG, and that the transaction achieved value for money for the taxpayer. Following this transaction, the Government’s shareholding will stand at 54.8%.

Details of the sale are summarised below:

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

What steps his Department is taking to support businesses affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

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

Throughout the pandemic, the Government have sought to support businesses across the UK. To do this, we have put in place a package of economic support for businesses and individuals worth £352 billion since the start of the pandemic. The Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England have highlighted that without this intervention the UK economy would be significantly worse than it is today.

[Mrs Murray [V]]

What additional financial assistance can my hon. Friend give the all-important tourism sector in Cornwall to ensure that it is fully ready to greet the G7 in June?

[John Glen]

Cornwall hosting the G7 is a fantastic opportunity. I know that my hon. Friend has welcomed this chance to showcase all that Cornwall has to offer. Many organisations in the broader tourism sector have benefited from business grants of over £34 million provided to her constituency of South East Cornwall, as well as business rates holidays and a temporary reduction in the rate of VAT. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has recently announced the £56 million welcome back fund to support safe local trade and tourism as economies reopen.

[David Simmonds [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and particularly welcome the support being offered in the form of extended business rates relief. Looking to the future and with reform of business rates in the pipeline, what discussions have taken place with Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy colleagues about the potential to balance the need to secure the correct revenue to support vital local government services and boosting high streets like mine in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner through the reform of business rates?

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend brings a great deal of expertise and experience to this matter. The Government have committed to over £16 billion in business rates support for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure property since April last year. When combined with small business rates relief, this means that three quarters of a million retail, hospitality and leisure properties in England will pay no business rates for the 15 months from 1 April last year. The Government are, however, undertaking a fundamental review of the business rates system and have invited stakeholders to contribute their views and ideas for reform. I know that my hon. Friend will also be very pleased to see the £16.9 million of business grants that his constituents have received.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Warren Buffett once said:

“What we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history.”

With a 50% rise in the number of companies in significant financial distress, to prevent repeating the historical mistakes of post the last financial crisis, inflicting all that scandalous treatment on SMEs, will my hon. Friend consider working with the banks to extend the very fair and sensible provisions of the pay as you grow scheme and bounce bank loans, and also transfer that into CBILS—coronavirus business interruption loan scheme—loans?

[John Glen]

The Treasury has, as my hon. Friend will know, amended the CBILS rules to allow lenders to extend loan terms from six to a maximum of 10 years, and that would assist borrowers in that repayment. CBILS term extension will be offered at the discretion of lenders, unlike pay as you grow options for bounce back loans, because they are different in terms of the guarantees that the Government have offered. Extensions are limited to those borrowers that lenders assess are in difficulty and will benefit from that extension, and only for the duration required. That customised approach, as I am sure he would understand given his vast business experience, is appropriate given the nature and scale of that different intervention.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

When Lex Greensill was given his No. 10 business card, he had no contract and no job description, and there have now been reports that during the pandemic, the financial empire that he built may have lent Government-backed money based on invoices to companies that had never done business with his client, GFG, some of which say they had no intention of doing so. Will the Minister look into the issue of how this financing was structured and ensure that hard-working British steelworkers do not pay the price for Greensill’s collapse?

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. I can assure him that this Government are fully committed to examining all those matters through the review process and complying with all requests for information in order to get to the bottom of this matter.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

What fiscal steps he is taking to support self-employed people as covid-19 restrictions are lifted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

What steps he is taking with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure the equitable distribution of coronavirus business support schemes.

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

The Government have provided £25 billion in cash grants for businesses, and that includes the £5 billion of funding allocated at the March Budget for restart grants and the discretionary additional restrictions grant fund. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has been working closely with local authorities to ensure that these grants are delivered as swiftly as possible and directed towards the businesses that have been most impacted by the pandemic.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck [V]]

It is clear that equitable distribution of covid business schemes is not a priority. Only those on this Treasury Bench would have the gall to claim fairness when the Chancellor and his Ministers were consumed with pulling out all the stops to support their friend the former Prime Minister on behalf of Greensill, while 3 million people were excluded from support schemes, some so distraught that they took their own lives. So to clear this up once and for all, can the Minister explain what news did Treasury officials report at a meeting on 24 April that made Greensill representatives “very pleased”?

[John Glen]

As I have said previously, the Government are committed to co-operating fully with all reviews on these matters. I do not accept what the hon. Lady has said with respect to the schemes that the Government have put forward over the past 14 months. Her constituency has had £16.7 million in business grants and 1,206 bounce-back loans totalling £30 million. In addition, 12,700 of her constituents have benefited from the furlough scheme, and 2,000 have benefited from the self-employed income support scheme. That is a significant contribution to help her constituents.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

How many promoters and operators of schemes subject to the loan charge have been prosecuted for promoting and operating those schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

On 31 January, in answer to the debate on justice for Equitable Life policyholders, this House was assured that all records were being retained and would be available in the event of their being needed. Equally, we were assured that there were no plans to destroy those records. I was therefore shocked that the Public Accounts Committee, in its hearing last week, was informed by Treasury officials that the records had been destroyed and would not be available. That makes getting justice for Equitable Life policyholders more expensive, so will my right hon. Friend agree to meet me and a small delegation of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, so that we can get to the bottom of how we can move this long-running saga forward?

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

There has been no change in the Treasury’s position since I updated the House in January 2019. The relevant records—the data relating to all payments made under the scheme—are retained, and will continue to be so for as long as that is legal. Contrary to the press reports, there are no plans to destroy records. There is a complaints process provided by the scheme, and those who are not satisfied may take their case to the independent review panel which resolved such cases before closure. Further to the oral evidence session to which my hon. Friend referred, the permanent secretary to the Treasury will be writing to the PAC to provide similar reassurance and clarification. Since the scheme has now closed, there will be no further funding on this matter.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]]

The Association of Accounting Technicians has published its response to the consultation opened by the Treasury on its plans to reduce air passenger duty, in which it argues that a reduction would be wrong, as it “contradicts and greatly weakens government policy on seeking to reach ‘net zero’ by 2050”. Why does the Government’s tax policy not support their net zero goals?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

The Government’s commitment to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures highlights the importance of transparency in investment portfolios. Does my hon. Friend agree that more can be done to improve transparency and prevent the exposure of investments by financial services companies to modern slavery?

[John Glen]

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. On modern slavery, the landmark provision in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 includes institutional investors that fall within the scope of the requirement and meet the criteria requiring them to publish an annual statement.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) [V]]

With the Prime Minister apparently determined to keep the VIP tax-break hotline open, and as questions remain over the No. 10 refurbishment and concerns over Government procurement are still not addressed, will the Chancellor explain whether he thinks it is time for an independent inquiry into the misuse of public funds?

Financial Services

John Glen Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (High-Risk Countries) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 392), dated 24 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.

This Government are committed to combating money laundering and terrorist financing and recognise the threat of economic crime to our financial system. Illicit finance risks damaging not only our national security, but our reputation as a global financial centre by undermining the integrity and stability of our markets and institutions.

While it is right that we stamp out the scourge of illicit finance for the benefit of the United Kingdom, it is also right that we do so because of our responsibilities to the wider world. When illicit finance flourishes, so does serious and organised crime, such as people and drug trafficking and terrorism. These are acts that have huge social and economic costs and, of course, cause unimaginable suffering. That is why the Government are focused on making the UK a hostile environment for illicit finance. As part of this work, we have taken significant action to tackle money laundering while strengthening the response of the whole financial system to economic crime.

The bedrock of these efforts is the money laundering regulations. This is the legislative framework that sets out a number of requirements that businesses falling under its scope must take to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. These requirements include the need for firms to implement measures to identify and verify the people and organisations with whom they have a business relationship or for whom they facilitate transactions.

In addition, the regulations require financial institutions and other regulated sector businesses to carry out greater scrutiny or enhanced due diligence in respect of business relationships and transactions involving so-called high-risk third countries. These are nations that have been identified as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regimes, and that pose a significant threat to the UK’s financial system. The statutory instrument under discussion this evening amends the definition of a high-risk third country in the money laundering regulations.

Allow me to explain the background to some of these changes. At present, the definition of a “high-risk third country” in the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017 is linked to retained EU law and references the list of countries identified by the European Commission as high risk. This list was previously operated via EU law, which no longer has an effect in the UK. If our legislation is not amended, the list will become outdated and could leave the United Kingdom at risk from those operating in nations with poor money laundering and terrorist financing controls.

Furthermore, the United Kingdom will risk falling behind international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force or FATF. This instrument will therefore amend the money laundering regulations to remove references to the EU’s high-risk third countries list and insert a new list of countries identified in schedule 3ZA. This will be the UK’s new autonomous high-risk third countries list. It will mirror exactly the list of countries identified by the Financial Action Task Force as having strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regimes, and it will keep the UK in line with international standards.

The change that I have outlined will allow us to continue to protect businesses and the financial system from those who pose a significant threat, while ensuring that the United Kingdom remains at the forefront of global standards in combating money laundering and terrorist financing. I thank Members for their examination of this important piece of legislation, and hope that colleagues will join me in supporting it this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) for the points they raised. I shall try to address some of them. As I outlined earlier, the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) (High-Risk Countries) Regulations introduce a new autonomous high-risk third countries list, which will ensure that UK legislation to protect the financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing remains up to date.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points. He first mentioned the FinCEN files, which are largely historic, but I will write to him about anything further I can on that. I met Spotlight on Corruption recently to be challenged on a number of aspects. He mentioned Companies House reform, on which work is ongoing, and there will be further announcements in due course.

The regulations represent the UK’s new approach to high-risk third countries. It will allow the UK to take its own view on which countries are high risk without referencing EU legislation and to remain in line with international standards in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The UK is internationally recognised as having some of the strongest controls worldwide for tackling money laundering and terrorist financing.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Who will be responsible for maintaining the list? Will it be Her Majesty’s Treasury? What will be the procedure to review it so that countries may come on to it and existing countries may come off it if they no longer meet the criteria?

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend for his reasonable question about the updating of the list. The Financial Action Task Force meets three times a year to determine the countries identified on its public lists. As such, the UK’s new autonomous high-risk third countries list could be updated up to three times a year to mirror the decisions made by FATF. We will look at that carefully. FATF monitors the UK—indeed, it did a mutual evaluation of the UK in December 2018 and gave us one of the highest ever rankings—and constantly updates countries who are high risk around the world.

I will make a few points in response to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East. In recent years, the Government have taken a number of actions to combat economic crime, including creating a new National Economic Crime Centre to co-ordinate the law enforcement response to economic crime, and passing the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which introduced new powers, including unexplained wealth orders and account freezing orders, and established the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision to improve the oversight of anti-money laundering compliance in the legal and accountancy sectors. In 2019, the Government and the private sector jointly published a landmark economic crime plan that outlines a comprehensive national response to economic crime such as fraud and money laundering, as mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. It provides a collective articulation of 52 actions being taken in both the public and private sectors in the next three years to ensure that UK cannot be abused for economic crime.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes mentioned the Cayman Islands. As of the FATF plenary in February 2021, FATF collectively agreed to include the Cayman Islands in its list of jurisdictions under increased monitoring. As that is one of the FATF public lists that the UK autonomous list mirrors, the Cayman Islands will be included in the UK’s list of high-risk third countries. The outstanding issues that the Cayman Islands must address are outlined in FATF’s publicly available statement.

I hope that the House has found the debate informative and will join me in supporting this important step to ensure that we have an up-to-date framework to protect the financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Keir Starmer relating to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, International Travel) (England) (Amendment) (No.7) Regulations (SI, 2021, No. 150) not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; the business on that Motion may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(David Duguid.)

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will now have a two-minute suspension for cleaning.

Financial Services Bill

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

Government amendment (a) in lieu.

Lords amendments 2 to 7.

Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 9 to 21.

[John Glen]

I am delighted to speak again on the Financial Services Bill following its passage through the other place, where it has been well looked after by my colleagues Earl Howe, Lord True and Baroness Penn. As our first major piece of financial services legislation since leaving the EU, the Bill will enhance the UK’s world-leading prudential standards, protect financial stability, promote openness between the UK and international markets and maintain an effective financial services regulatory framework and sound capital markets.

The Bill was thoroughly scrutinised in the other place, with more than 200 amendments tabled across Committee and Report. In total, the Lords made 21 amendments to the Bill. During the passage of the Bill, there has been a lengthy discussion about how best to address issues of consumer harm in the financial sector. Lords amendment 1 before us today proposes that this should be addressed through a requirement on the Financial Conduct Authority to bring forward rules that would place a duty of care on financial services firms in relation to their customers.

The Government are committed to ensuring that financial services consumers are protected and that steps are taken quickly to address new issues when they are identified. However, the Government believe that the FCA already has the necessary powers and is acting to ensure that sufficient protections are in place for consumers. The Government therefore cannot accept this amendment, but recognise that Parliament wants to be assured that the FCA’s ongoing work will lead to meaningful change.

I will today set out the standards that firms must already adhere to when providing financial services to their customers. These are governed by the FCA’s “Principles for Business”, as well as specific requirements in the handbook. These principles set out how specific requirements on firms work, and they include:

“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.”

The FCA’s enforcement powers allow it to ensure that these standards are met, although the FCA recognises that the level of harm in markets is still too high and is committed to taking further actions.

The Government agree with the concerns that were raised in the other place that this harm may in part stem from an asymmetry of information between financial services firms and their customers. The risk is that many firms may seek to exploit this asymmetry. The FCA is well aware of how informational asymmetries and behavioural biases can influence consumer behaviour, and is committed to ensuring that these issues are addressed where it considers that they may result in harm. The Government therefore support the FCA’s ongoing programme of work in this area and believe that it will deliver meaningful change for the benefit of consumers.

The FCA has considered its existing framework of principles, and whether the way in which firms have responded to the principles is sufficient to ensure that consumers have the right protections and get the right outcomes. Building on this, the FCA will consult in May on clear proposals to raise and clarify its expectations of firms’ actions and behaviours, and on any necessary changes to its principles to deliver this. These proposals will consider how to raise the level of care firms must provide to consumers through a duty of care or other provisions. Ultimately, the proposals in this consultation will seek to ensure that consumers benefit from a better level of care from financial services firms.

I have therefore tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 1. This amendment will require the FCA to consult on whether it should make rules providing that authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers. It ensures that the FCA will publish its analysis of the responses to this consultation by the end of this year. It also ensures that the FCA will make final rules following that consultation before 1 August 2022.

I hope that the establishment of these clear milestones demonstrates the commitment of both the Government and the FCA to delivering better outcomes for financial services consumers. In line with commitments made in the other place regarding Parliament’s scrutiny of the financial services regulators, I can confirm that the FCA will bring its conclusions to the attention of the relevant parliamentary Committees, giving them an opportunity to consider the proposals and, if they choose, to express a view or raise any issues. The FCA will respond to any issues that are raised by parliamentary Committees.

I now turn to Lords amendment 8 on mortgage prisoners. It is an issue I take extremely seriously, but I am afraid that the Government cannot accept this amendment. We must continue to be guided by the facts and the evidence. The FCA’s analysis shows that half the 250,000 borrowers with inactive firms meet the normal risk appetite of lenders and could therefore switch if they chose to without any Government intervention.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have been contacted by many constituents who are in a precarious position and do not have such options. My hon. Friends the Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) have conveyed to me that some of their constituents are also in that position. I respect the Minister greatly, but is it not possible to reconsider given the precarious position that my constituents and others find themselves in?

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, as ever, for his contribution. I will go on to explain the situation of the remaining 125,000 individuals who could be categorised in that way, the actions that we have taken to date and what we will continue to look for. If that category can move without Government intervention, they are not “prisoners”.

Of the remaining 125,000 who cannot switch, 70,000 are in arrears and therefore could not secure a new deal even if they were in the active market. Those borrowers need to work with their lender to agree an appropriate repayment plan. The remaining 55,000 who are with inactive lenders and are up to date with their payments but who cannot switch are paying on average only 0.4 percentage points more than similar borrowers on reversion rates with active lenders—those with similar characteristics. The reason these borrowers are unable to switch is not that their mortgage is with an inactive firm but that they do not meet the risk appetite of lenders. They may, for example, have a combination of high loan-to-values, be on interest-only mortgages with no plan for repayment, or have higher levels of unsecured debts, non-standard sources of income or poor credit history. Similar borrowers in the active market are also typically unlikely to be offered deals with new lenders.

As I have set out previously, the Government and FCA have undertaken significant work in this area to create additional options that make switching into the active market easier for some borrowers. In particular, the modified affordability assessment allows active mortgage lenders to waive the normal affordability checks for borrowers with inactive lenders who meet certain criteria—for example, not being in arrears and not wishing to borrow more.

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

I know that the problem the Minister is trying to solve is not of his making. The problem originated when the affordability rules were changed pursuant to the financial crisis. The affordability rules were waived for people with their existing lenders who wanted to move from one fixed-rate deal, when it terminated, to the next one. Those with inactive lenders who are in the same situation cannot do that because those products are simply not available. That is one of the key problems that we have not solved yet. I would appreciate his continued efforts to work with us on this particular issue.

[John Glen]

I thank my hon. Friend, who, without equal in this House, has done so much to champion mortgage prisoners. I hope he will carry on working with us as we continue to improve our understanding and the quality of the data that could underpin further interventions.

I can reaffirm to the House today that my own, and this Government’s, commitment is as strong as it ever has been to finding further solutions that do not provide false hope to borrowers, but I am afraid that amendment 8 represents neither a proportionate nor practical response on this complex issue. I will address the two sections of the amendment in turn. First, the amendment seeks to cap the standard variable rate, or SVR, that inactive firms charge borrowers. This would be an unprecedented intervention in the mortgage market and is a completely disproportionate approach when the data shows that the 55,000 borrowers to which I referred pay on average 0.4 percentage points more than similar borrowers in the active market. Such drastic Government intervention should not be undertaken lightly, as it could have significant impacts above and beyond the effect that the amendment seeks.

That cap would be deeply unfair to borrowers in the active market who are in arrears or unable to secure a new fixed-rate deal, because the cap would not include them. Let us consider two hypothetical borrowers. The first borrower took out their mortgage prior to the financial crisis when, as my hon. Friend said, there were looser affordability requirements. They borrowed, in some cases, 125% of the property’s value, avoiding the need to save a deposit. Shortly after, their lender failed and had to be nationalised. The second borrower took out their mortgage following the financial crisis, when there were stricter affordability requirements. They saved a deposit of 5% or perhaps even 10%, and then were able to buy their home. Let us say that both those borrowers lost their jobs and now work in lower-paid jobs. They live in an area where property prices have not grown as much as they would have liked. Both try to keep up with their repayments, but ultimately fall into arrears, with the result that neither can easily access new deals. Neither of those borrowers has done anything wrong, and both deserve support from their lender and the wider financial system, but the Government cannot possibly agree with the idea that one should be supported by an unprecedented market intervention of this kind, and the other not. Both adhered to the prevailing conditions at the time.

I am also concerned that any cap on standard variable rates, including one only applicable to inactive lenders, would have unintended consequences for financial stability. The London School of Economics agreed and did not recommend a cap, noting that it could cause market harm. It would restrict lenders’ ability to vary rates in line with market conditions—the ability to vary SVRs allows lenders to re-price products to reflect changes to the cost of doing business—and could therefore create risks with significant implications for financial stability.

The second part of the amendment would require new fixed-rate deals to be offered to borrowers with inactive lenders, although it is unclear how that is to be achieved. Lending remains a commercial decision based on a variety of factors and it would not be right for the Government to compel lenders to provideproducts for specific groups. If the amendment is intended to require the current holders of these mortgages to offer new products, that would require firms that do not currently have the lending expertise, systems or regulatory permissions necessary to offer new mortgage products to do so. However, in opposing the amendment, I reiterate once again my commitment to continue to find further practical and proportionate options for affected borrowers, supported by facts and evidence, as I have over the past three years. Equally, I do not want to give false assurances, or false hope, for the sake of political expediency, especially when it is likely that there is a limit to what further action the Government can take to support such borrowers.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Could we agree a basic principle that identical borrowers—the Minister uses the example of two similar borrowers in similar situations—should be treated exactly the same? One should not be treated better than the other. Will he agree to a principle that, if a person is a UK borrower and is in the same financial situation as others, whether they are with an active lender or an inactive lender, the treatment of those individuals should be the same: the options should be the same; the deals should be the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I would be happy to seek solutions for those mortgage holders of active and inactive lenders, but my hon. Friend must recognise that different individuals have different characteristics: different loan-to-valuation ratios; different credit histories; different income flows; and different histories in their financial situation. Those characteristics cannot be factored out. None the less, I am absolutely committed to this issue and it is in that spirit that I announce today that the Treasury will work with the FCA—that means work with it on a review to its existing data on mortgage prisoners—to ensure that we have further detail on the characteristics of those borrowers who have mortgages with inactive firms and are unable to switch despite being up to date with their mortgage payments.

The FCA will also review the effect of its recent interventions to remove regulatory barriers to switching for mortgage prisoners and will report on this by the end of November, and I will lay a copy of that review before Parliament. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, who has done so much excellent work in this area and who champions the cause of mortgage prisoners, may wish to bring proposals sooner than that, and, of course, I have always made myself available to Members across the House to look constructively at any solution that has merit.

The Treasury will use the results of the review that I have set out to establish whether further solutions can be found for such borrowers that are practical and proportionate. Recognising the significant constraints that I have noted, I assure the House and the other place that the Government will continue urgently to seek any further solutions that may provide support to borrowers with inactive lenders who are unable to switch, but, as I have said, those solutions must be practical and proportionate.

In addition, I am grateful to the active lenders who have come forward to offer options to these borrowers. I am also committing today to write to active lenders to urge them and the wider industry to go even further and look at what more they can do to ensure that as many borrowers as possible benefit from these options.

I hope that I have convinced the House that this amendment, in this form, is not the right solution to such a complex issue. I also hope that I have demonstrated my personal commitment, and the Government’s commitment, to continuing to seek sensible and workable solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate this evening.

As other Members have, I will speak to Lords amendment 8 on mortgage prisoners. In an intervention on the Minister earlier, I expressed concern about the issue. I do so having been asked by numerous constituents to highlight the dreadfully precarious position in which many have found themselves. I will give one example. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) also gave an example, and such examples are real-life ones of people on the frontline.

I have spoken on a number of occasions—I believe this to be the fifth time since 2017—on the subject of mortgage prisoners and, from the outset, I make it clear that my colleagues and I will vote in favour of Lords amendment 8. I have the deepest respect for the Minister, but there has to be more than cake tomorrow to assure my colleagues and me on behalf of my constituents. We hope that he and Her Majesty’s Government will do what is right for those people.

As we have all heard, the Lords amendment coined the phrase, “mortgage prisoners”. That is what my constituent has highlighted—she believes her family to be prisoners of their mortgage. She writes:

“My husband and I, like many others in Northern Ireland are classed as mortgage prisoners, through no fault of our own. Like many others in Northern Ireland, our mortgage was taken out with Northern Rock, which subsequently collapsed. Our mortgage was then sold to a vulture fund without our consent. As these vulture funds are not an active lender, they do not offer mortgages, hence are unable to offer alternative mortgage products.

We are penalised on very high interest rates, which at the moment is currently well over 4% above the BOE base rate. This is crippling us, never mind the detrimental effect that it is having on our mental health.”

Sometimes it is not just about the finances; it is the effect on mental health as well.

Her email was not the only one to use such terminology. My belief is that the Lords amendment would take strides to free those who have thus far been all but imprisoned through no fault of their own, unable to do anything but scrape by, not entitled to Government help or aid, as their wages are sufficient on paper, but not in reality. I agree that a cap on the standard variable rate of interest for mortgage prisoners on closed books would address the issue.

I do not propose to spend much time rehearsing the specific arguments, which others have done already. Instead, I wish to make two points that are self-explanatory. Last Monday, the Minister came to the House to tell us that a compensation fund for London & Capital bondholders—with a sum of £120 million of UK taxpayers’ money—would be necessary following the excellent forensic investigation and analysis report by Dame Elizabeth Gloster. I understand the rationale behind that decision, and yet it leads me to my second point : why not a solution for the mortgage prisoners tonight? As I said, and have been reiterating for years, there continues to be what I can only term a failure to regulate in any way vulture funds such as Cerberus, but at the same time Her Majesty’s Treasury rightly made the decisions on Northern Rock. Despite limited efforts by the FCA, due to the restrictions placed in legislation by Her Majesty’s Government on the regulatory perimeter, little or nothing has been done for those mortgage prisoners in more than a decade. It is time for that to stop and for Her Majesty’s Government to start finding credible solutions.

A constituent contacted me to tell me that there is a rumour that the Conservatives will impose a three-line Whip against Lords amendment 8. If that is true, it is very sad. I also believe, with respect, that it is disgraceful. Many of my constituents are worried. They have talked to me personally. My hon. Friends the Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), and my other colleagues have all expressed the same concern. We have to make a decision tonight on behalf of our constituents that ensures that their viewpoints are heard, and we have to do it in the best way that we can in this House, which is by how we cast our vote.

After seeing at first hand the impact of no action on the lives of mortgage prisoners in my constituency and beyond, I can do nothing but agree. If this is the line of the Government against these 250,000—or the half a million, as one hon. Member has said—struggling families, I will be supporting Lords amendment 8. I have no difficulty in that and I shall ask all other right-thinking MPs to do the same.

A decade of struggle has passed. We have it in our hands, right now, in this Chamber, to make a change. It is, I believe, right to do so. I shamelessly ask Members to do what is right on this occasion for those families in the middle section who have been squeezed beyond belief, physically, financially and mentally. Let us give relief to them, as today, right now, it is in our gift to be able to do so.

[John Glen]

I am extremely grateful to all Members who have contributed to this debate. I will not to rehearse the arguments that I made at the outset, but will respond in the right spirit, in the right way, to the constructive and careful analysis that we have had from many Members across the House this evening.

Let me start by addressing the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden). I said to him during the Committee stage that I was always listening. I think that I have proved that to be the case in the way that the Government have responded on the climate change amendment and on “buy now, pay later”. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who spoke with characteristic deep knowledge of the sector. It is absolutely clear that we need to get the legislation and the intervention right when it comes to “buy now, pay later”. She rightly asserted the massive growth in that sector and the unfortunate consequences that will certainly befall, and that does befall, a number of consumers. We will work quickly to examine that market and what interventions will meet the need.

I am very tempted to address a whole number of points around Lords amendment 8. It is a real priority of mine to find a response that meets the unfortunate situation where people are trapped in very difficult circumstances. I pay tribute once again to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) who made a passionate speech, identifying Louise, a mortgage prisoner, whose personal story was one to which the whole House was sympathetic. A number of other colleagues raised similar stories. None the less, I do need to have a proportionate response—a response that can take account of data. I appreciate the excellent work carried out by the all-party group and I recognise its dataset—449 people. None the less, when I am faced with data from the FCA, looking comprehensively at 23,000 cases, I cannot deny that asymmetry. I will commit to continued dialogue to try to find a way forward. Those are not empty words; they reflect the complexity of this matter—a matter that is underpinned by half a generation of different rules and regulations. Before the crisis, people could borrow in ways that today we would think totally unacceptable, and that are indeed unacceptable. The market must provide better solutions than it can provide at the moment, and I will look carefully at what we can do to ensure that that happens.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made a number of points on Lords amendment 1 about the duty of care, and I have set out at length my approach to that, which is again to examine and listen carefully to what the FCA is saying. It will then be obliged to come forward with rule changes. So these are not empty words; they recognise all the work of the charities and organisations that are highlighting this case. Of course, in financial services there is a strong dynamic of change, and the Government and regulators must be ready to step in and make appropriate interventions as that market changes.

I believe that this Bill is a key component of a new, broader regulatory strategy that will underpin the UK financial services sector as a genuine world leader now that we have left the European Union. I welcome the speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) and for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), which exhibited a deep knowledge and a constructive approach to this very sophisticated industry, underpinned with a lot of personal experience. I will take from this debate many points of detail. I do not agree with every point that has been made on Lords amendment 8, but I stand ready to engage with Members across the House to seek to find solutions. I am proud to have been able to lead this Bill through the House.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 1.

Lords amendments 2 to 7 agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8.—(John Glen.)

London Capital & Finance

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Written Statements

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

On 17 December 2020, I announced that the Treasury would set up a compensation scheme for bondholders who suffered losses after investing in London Capital & Finance (LCF) (HCWS678)^[1]. This statement provides an update on the Government’s approach, including the details of the scheme and the next steps for bondholders.

LCF was a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) authorised firm which issued unregulated non-transferable debt securities, commonly known as “mini-bonds”, to investors and then speculatively invested the funds received in a number of underlying businesses. LCF went into administration in January 2019 and at the point of failure 11,625 bondholders had invested around £237 million.

This has been a very difficult time for LCF bondholders, many of whom are elderly and have lost their hard-earned savings. As I noted in my last statement, for some, this will have formed part of an investment portfolio, but for others, it will have represented a significant portion of their savings.

One of the key purposes of regulation is to ensure that investors have the right information to understand their risk. Within this system even a regulator doing everything right will not be able to, and should not be expected to, ensure a zero-failure regime. That is why statute has established the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS), which is the compensation scheme for customers of failed financial services firms in the UK. Its scope is strictly limited and it is only able to pay out when a relevant regulated activity has been undertaken. The FSCS has considered LCF claims in detail and has been able to protect around 2,800 bondholders, paying out over £57 million in compensation.

It is an important point of principle that Government do not step in to pay compensation in respect of failed financial services firms that fall outside the FSCS. Doing so would create the wrong set of incentives for individuals and an unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. However, the situation regarding LCF is unique and exceptional. After considering the issues in detail, the Government have decided to establish a compensation scheme for LCF bondholders. The scheme I am announcing today appropriately balances the interests of both bondholders and the taxpayer and will ensure that all LCF bondholders receive a fair level of compensation in respect of the financial loss they have suffered.

LCF’s business model was highly unusual, both in its scale and structure. In particular, it was authorised by the FCA despite generating no income from regulated activities. This allowed LCF’s unregulated activity of selling mini-bonds to benefit from the “halo effect” of being issued by an authorised firm, helping LCF gain respectability and grow to an unprecedented scale before it failed, resulting in losses for thousands of bondholders.

A complex range of interconnected factors contributed to the scale of losses for LCF bondholders. Clearly individuals have responsibility for choosing investments that are suitable for their risk profile. The high interest rates on offer from LCF, particularly when compared with deposit accounts, should have prompted questions from potential bondholders about the risks. While some may have understood those risks and invested anyway, LCF’s disclosure materials and marketing strategy may have led others to believe they were investing in a product that was far safer than it was.

Bondholders have reported LCF using a range of dishonest tactics to persuade them to invest. For example, some novice investors have said they were encouraged to declare themselves to be sophisticated and experienced, thereby enabling them to access products that should have been out of reach. Furthermore, LCF appears to have adopted flawed investment and marketing strategies and paid high commissions of up to 25% to the sales agent.

Bondholders have been badly let down by LCF, but they have also been let down by the regulatory system that is designed to protect them. The independent investigation led by Dame Elizabeth Gloster^[2], which the Government published at the end of last year, concluded that the FCA did not discharge its functions in respect of LCF in a manner which enabled it to effectively fulfil its statutory objectives during the relevant period.

While I have not seen evidence that would indicate that the regulatory failings at the FCA were the primary cause of the losses incurred by LCF bondholders, they are a significant factor that the Government have taken into account when deciding to establish this scheme. Indeed, the Government do not ordinarily step in to pay compensation to consumers in relation to allegations of fraud, investment losses, mis-selling or mis-buying of investments. I would, however, like to make it clear that neither the Government nor the FCA accept any legal liability for the failure of LCF or the losses incurred by its bondholders.

In these extraordinary circumstances, the Government have decided to establish a compensation scheme. However, it is imperative to avoid creating the misconception that Government will stand behind bad investments in future, even where FSCS protection does not apply. That would create a moral hazard for investors and potentially lead individuals to choose unsuitable investments, thinking the Government will provide compensation if things go wrong. The ultimate responsibility for choosing suitable investments must remain with individuals.

To avoid creating this misconception, and to take into account the wide range of factors that contributed to the losses that Government would not ordinarily compensate for, the Government will establish a scheme that provides 80% of LCF bondholders’ initial investment up to a maximum of £68,000. Where bondholders have received interest payments from LCF or distributions from the administrators, Smith & Williamson, these will be deducted from the amount of compensation payable. The scheme will be available to all LCF bondholders who have not already received compensation from the FSCS and represents 80% of the compensation they would have received had they been eligible for FSCS protection.

Around 97% of all LCF bondholders invested less than £85,000 and therefore will not reach the compensation cap under either the Government scheme or the FSCS. The Government expect to pay out around £120 million in compensation in total and the scheme to have paid all bondholders within six months of securing the necessary primary legislation, which the Government will bring forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Bondholders do not need to do anything at this stage and Government will provide further details on how the scheme will operate in due course. The scheme will be simple and straightforward to navigate. Bondholders will not need to use a claims management company, solicitor or any other organisation to help them claim.

I am mindful that some individuals may be anxious to receive their compensation and I urge bondholders to be vigilant to the risk of scammers posing as services to help them claim. To reiterate, the scheme has not opened yet and bondholders should await further announcements from the Government on next steps.

One of the challenges highlighted by Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report is that, despite exhibiting many of the characteristics of other regulated financial services activities, the issuance of mini-bonds is not currently a regulated activity. The Government are committed to ensuring the financial services sector is well regulated and consumers are adequately protected, and the Treasury is therefore today launching a consultation on proposals to bring the issuance of mini-bonds into FCA regulation. This consultation is the culmination of a review into the regulation of mini-bonds that I announced in May 2019 and delivers on one of the recommendations made in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report.

In addition, the FCA is continuing its work to address the recommendations in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report, including through its ongoing transformation programme. A number of important steps have already been taken and I welcome the FCA’s commitment to report publicly on the progress of these vital reforms.

Finally, I wish to reiterate my sympathy for LCF bondholders. I hope the compensation offered by the Government scheme will offer some relief to the distress and hardship suffered and provide closure on this difficult matter.

^[1] A link to the previous WMS can be found via: https://www.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2020-12-17/HCWS678.

^[2] The full report can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/assets.publishing.service/government/uploads/system/attachmentdata/file/945247/GlosterReportFinal.pdf.

[HCWS922]

Mortgage Guarantee Scheme: Notification of Contingent Liability

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Written Statements

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

It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 and for which there is no statutory authority, for the Minister concerned:

to present a departmental minute to Parliament, giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and

to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

I am writing to notify Parliament of a contingent liability that has been created by the Government from the introduction of the new mortgage guarantee scheme. The scheme will be open to new mortgages submitted by participating lenders from 19 April 2021, but the liability will not be incurred until lenders start to submit mortgages to the scheme, which is not expected until May at the earliest.

By way of background, the mortgage guarantee scheme was announced at the Budget on 3 March 2021. The scheme will provide a guarantee to lenders across the UK who offer mortgages to people with a deposit of 5% on homes with a value of up to £600,000. Under the scheme all buyers will have the opportunity to fix their initial mortgage rate for at least five years should they wish to. The scheme, which will be available for new mortgages up to 31 December 2022, will increase the availability of mortgages on new or existing properties for those with small deposits. The guarantee will be valid for up to seven years after the mortgage is originated.

Exposure against this contingent liability would take place in the event that the sum of commercial fees paid by lenders would not be sufficient to cover calls on the guarantee. There will be a cap on the size of the Government’s contingent liability under the scheme of £3.9 billion.

Authority for any expenditure required under this liability will be sought through the normal procedure. HM Treasury has approved this proposal.

I will also lay a minute today on this matter.

[HCWS915]

Bilateral Loan to Ireland

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Written Statements

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

I would like to update Parliament on the loan to Ireland.



In December 2010, the UK agreed to provide a bilateral loan of £3.2 billion as part of a €67.5 billion international assistance package for Ireland. The loan was disbursed in eight tranches, and the final tranche was drawn down on 26 September 2013. Ireland has made interest payments on the loan every six months since the first disbursement.

On 26 March, in line with the agreed repayment schedule, HM Treasury received a total payment of £406,428,318.19 from Ireland. This comprises the repayment of £403,370,000 in principal and £3,058,318.19 in accrued interest.

HM Treasury has also provided a further report to Parliament in relation to the loan as required under the Loans to Ireland Act 2010. The report relates to the period from 1 October 2020 to 31 March 2021. It reports fully on the two final principal repayments received by HM Treasury during this period. The loan has been repaid in full and on time.

A written ministerial statement on the previous statutory report regarding the loan to Ireland was issued to Parliament on 5 October 2020, Official Report, column 18WS.

[HCWS907]

NatWest Group: Disposal of Government-owned Shares

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Written Statements

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

I can today inform the House of the disposal of approximately £1.1 billion-worth of Government-owned NatWest Group (NWG, formerly Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS) shares, representing 4.86% of the company, by way of a directed buyback transaction.

Approximately £1.1 billion-worth of shares were sold to NWG in a single bilateral transaction on 19 March 2021.

Rationale

It is Government policy that where a Government asset no longer serves a public policy purpose, or that purpose may be more efficiently realised with the asset in private ownership, the Government may choose to sell that asset, subject to being able to achieve value for money. This frees up public resource tied up in the asset which can be deployed to achieve other public policy objectives.

The Government are committed to returning NWG to full private ownership, now that the original policy objective for the intervention in NWG—to preserve financial and economic stability at a time of crisis—has been achieved. The Government only conduct sales of NWG shares when it represents value for money to do so and market conditions allow. This sale represents a further step forward for Government in exiting the assets acquired as a result of the 2007 to 2008 financial crisis.

Format and Timing

The Government, supported by advice from UK Government Investments (UKGI), concluded that selling shares to NWG, 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. On 6 February 2019, NWG obtained shareholder authority to purchase shares held by Government at market price. This authority was renewed at subsequent NWG annual general meetings in April 2019 and April 2020.

This is the third sale of NWG shares undertaken by the Government, following previous disposals in August 2015 and June 2018. This is the first sale of shares via an off-market share sale directly to the company.

The sale concluded on 19 March 2021, with NWG purchasing a limited number of its Government-owned shares. A total of c. 591 million shares—4.86% of the bank—were sold at the 18 March 2021 closing price of 190.5 p 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 will stand at 59.8%.

Details of the sale are summarised below:

UK Counter-Terrorist Asset-Freezing Regime: 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020

John Glen Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Written Statements

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

Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (TAFA 2010), the Treasury was required to prepare a quarterly report regarding its exercise of the powers conferred on it by part 1 of TAFA 2010. This written statement satisfies that requirement for the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020.

This report also covers the UK’s implementation of the UN’s ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida asset-freezing regime (ISIL-AQ), and the operation of the EU’s asset-freezing regime under EU regulation (EC) 2580/2001 concerning external terrorist threats to the EU (also referred to as the CP 931 regime).

Under the ISIL-AQ asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations and the Treasury, through the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida (Asset-Freezing) Regulations 2011.

Under EU regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations and while the UK was a member of the EU and throughout the transition period OFSI had responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.

EU regulation (2016/1686) was implemented on 22 September 2016. This permits the EU to make autonomous Al-Qaida and ISIL (Da’esh) listings.

UK sanctions following the end of the transition period

Since the transition period ended at 11:00 pm on 31 December 2020, the UK no longer applies EU sanctions regulations and all sanctions regimes will be implemented through UK regulations. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (the Sanctions Act) provides the legal framework for the UK to impose, update and lift sanctions autonomously. Information on the three new counter-terrorism sanctions regimes can be found via this link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-counter-terrorism-sanctions

These new sanction regimes ensure that the UK implements its international obligations under UN Security Council resolution 1373 and give effect to the UK’s obligations under UN Security Council resolution 2368.

This is the final quarterly report to Parliament on the UK’s terrorist asset-freezing regime.

The attached tables set out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter.

Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-03-18/HCWS862/.

[HCWS862]

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 9th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on requiring private creditors to cancel debt owed by developing countries during the covid-19 pandemic.

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

The Chancellor regularly engages with his international partners in the G7, G20 and the Paris Club on debt issues, including private sector participation in debt restructurings, and Treasury officials are also engaging with the private sector on this issue.

[Mary Kelly Foy [V]]

As the Government slash international aid, covid-19 could push up to 150 million people globally into extreme poverty, yet many banks and asset managers operating in the UK, including HSBC, BlackRock and J.P. Morgan, continue to demand debt repayments from developing countries, leaving them with less money to respond to covid-19. Will the Government urgently introduce new legislation to prevent developing countries from being sued in UK courts by banks, asset managers and vulture funds if they are unable to pay their debts as a result of the pandemic?

[John Glen]

I note the hon. Lady’s long-standing interest in this subject, but I want to state clearly that the Government support the role of the low-income developing countries to be supported by the UK’s G7 presidency. We have made clear our expectation that the private sector and the firms she mentioned will offer debt treatment on at least as favourable terms as the official sector, under the common framework, as agreed by the G20 last November.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

What fiscal steps he is taking to help support people ineligible for his Department's covid-19 income support schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said the day after the comprehensive spending review that the Government were looking at when they will bring forward legislation on the 0.7% of gross national income target. Can he update us? What is the Government’s timescale for bringing forward the legislative proposals to reduce the annual target of spending 0.7% of GNI on aid to 0.5%?

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

The Foreign Secretary is continuing to look very carefully at the legislative requirements and will set out further detail in due course on how the Government intend to proceed.

[Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]]

If the Government are unwilling to support the licensed trade through varying duty rates, there is another fiscal policy to sustain hard-pressed pubs in our communities. Italy has reduced VAT and alcohol sales in pubs and restaurants. Should that not be replicated here, sustaining public revenue while supporting the consumption of alcohol on supervised premises and maintaining community assets in our towns and villages?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]]

With Doncaster missing out on its freeport bid, what other incentives does my hon. Friend believe there are for businesses to locate in the town?

[John Glen]

The Government are committed to encouraging business investment in Doncaster and its surrounding area, and at the Budget we confirmed £23 million funding for Goldthorpe’s town deal—just due west of the town—and that will boost economic growth and encourage business investment in the area. MHCLG is currently assessing the remaining 49 towns fund bids, including those from Doncaster and Stainforth; we will make further announcements on those in due course.

[Mr Speaker]

I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business to be made.