National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I think that I had reached the conclusion of my remarks, which is that I support these amendments. I particularly support impact assessments.

Before I sit down, I just make the comment that it is somewhat strange to note that we were voting on something in the Chamber of the House relating to boxes in the Royal Albert Hall, but we are deprived of the opportunity to vote on the matter of national insurance rises for every company in the UK. That seems to me to be somewhat absurd.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I stand as a winding speaker but also as someone who attached their name to Amendment 22 from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which I think gets to the heart of the problem that we have with this Bill. To me, the most pernicious measure has been the dropping of the threshold, which has meant that trapped into employers’ national insurance contributions are the lowest paid and the part-timers. There is a disadvantageous impact on small businesses in hospitality and tourism, which are the backbone of so many communities and employ so many people for whom other work is very difficult to find. That makes it a really significant amendment, and I was very glad to attach my name.

I talked on an earlier set of amendments, essentially, about small businesses but also, more broadly, about tourism, hospitality and part-timers. I will not repeat that; the Committee has listened to me once on those issues and certainly does not need to hear me twice. I just make a small comment on why I am particularly concerned about the approach to small businesses, which is that it seems to me that the Government have put in some protections for what are genuinely micro-businesses but do not use “micro” and instead keep using “small”. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, identified the benchmark, which is about seven employees. Then you can start to do better under the changes that the Government have made. However, every time I read about the growth agenda, it requires the upscaling of our small businesses. This, in many ways, has been the British disease.

I was looking at reports from the ScaleUp Institute, which obviously does excellent surveys so you can get a granular feel of what is happening with many of these businesses. Most of them state that the first problem in scaling up is talent, but the second problem is access to finance. For a company that will now have to take on board additional costs—about £1,000 or more per employee—this will exaggerate that problem of access to finance. Many of them will now have to find finance in order to be able to cover the working capital that is engaged in paying higher employers’ national insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his excellent and interesting Second Reading speech, covered some of the issues associated with that credit.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

It was not a Second Reading speech; I was addressing the issues in the amendment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

We will have to beg to differ on that.

I think that the Minister will turn around and say that a great deal is being done for small businesses that want to upscale and that we should look at the British Business Bank. We are talking about an entity that is so small that it really cannot meet this need, so there is a very big problem here to be addressed. It seems to me that the way in which the national insurance contributions increase will work will knock back the effort that has to be made to help people get through what is often known as the credit valley of death, so that they can go from being small to the thriving, upscaled businesses that we need to drive the growth that we need.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I come in just to endorse what my noble friend Lady Noakes said about small businesses and indeed to support these amendments generally. I will speak on my own set of amendments later on with respect to impact assessments.

I founded a small business. Yes, it was a not-for profit-business—Politeia, which is a think tank—but, in 1995, we went through the phase described so well by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of wondering how we would meet employer payroll at the end of every month. From a comfortable position now looking back, we are still not exactly in a rosy situation because, every time policy changes or there are external shocks such as Covid, we face more costs. It is difficult to see how any small business needing to make a profit can do so and expand.

In my case, as someone involved in running a small business, I would say that we have a done a lot of good. It is a not-for-profit charitably funded think tank, but we train graduates and even young people coming straight from school who are finding their place in the job market. We have always paid slightly over the minimum wage once they get on to the payroll, and they go on to do great things: they join the Civil Service; they join the public sector; or they get training contracts and continue working with us, because it helps them to pay the fees for the next phase. We will have to think about that model, because they are going to cost a great deal more. Some of the senior staff earn much more decent salaries than perhaps even the people who founded the organisation do, and we will have to rethink the senior and experienced team because of the enormous hit that we are taking. That is not to mention all the other costs in the Budget.

From the perspective of a very micro-business, this will have serious consequences. I speak as somebody still involved in running it and raising the money. Noble Lords will know that people’s spare money that goes to think tanks such as mine will cease and those people will have to cut their own jobs—that is where the funding comes from. I urge the Government to think again about the proposal from my noble friend Lady Noakes and all the other excellent proposals in this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blackwell (Con)]

My Lords, I will not repeat the powerful arguments that have been made for this set of amendments, but I would like to put the argument in stark terms. What is exceptional about most charities is that they do not have the ability to raise revenue by selling more and putting up prices. Some do, but many are not commercial enterprises. In effect, since those charities can raise this money only through additional fundraising, the Government are saying to charities, “We want you to go out and solicit more contributions from philanthropists to pay for government services”. If the Government went out to the public and said, “This is what we’re going to do”, I wonder how many people would think that a sensible policy.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief, because these Benches spoke extensively on charities in an earlier grouping, where the amendment would have overturned the change that the Government are introducing. I particularly want to pick up the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because, like others, I am very conscious that, of the charities that I have talked to, a fundamental part of their problem is that they cannot turn around and respond quickly enough to a measure that is being introduced so quickly. I am not up on all the rules of the Charity Commission, but I suspect that it would frown greatly on a charity spending when there is no clear funding mechanism coming in to replenish its resources. I think that there is a requirement to have several months’ contingency on the books, so there is a real problem here for many charities in having to turn around very quickly.

One of the amendments deals with increases in the employment allowance. That runs into a problem that the Government could help us with. It is my understanding that an entity that sells 50% of its services to the public sector does not qualify for employment allowance, so there will be many charities that are excluded from any benefit that is offered under that amendment. I wonder if the Minister could help us to get a better grip on that, because I think we have all struggled with understanding the application of those rules.

My last point did not occur to me until I started reading the input from various charities. A number of charities that have been able to survive and are fairly confident about their funding will now find themselves in a position where they need to battle and compete for grants. Some of the very smallest charities are concerned that they may get excluded from the grant offering because charities with a bigger reach are now turning to those particular pots. I am not sure whether the Government considered that as they put together this picture.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

This is an interesting set of amendments, given that, in essence, through this policy the Government are looking to take £1 billion out of the charity sector to fund public services, when the charity sector obviously provides public services—so it is a uniquely baffling government initiative. We on these Benches absolutely support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on Amendment 11A and by my noble friend Lady Sater on Amendment 32.

I speak to Amendment 52, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. This amendment would increase the employment allowance for charities from £10,500 to £20,000 to assist with the burden being placed upon charities. It is a probing amendment, and I would like to understand the cost that this would have for the Treasury and the plans the Government have to support the sector with the increased costs and the rise.

The remarkable comments made by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, and its estimate that this will cost the sector £1.4 billion every year, has been referenced in this debate by my noble friend Lord Leigh and others. It would leave charities in a position where they are unable to absorb the costs and will, as a result, be forced to reduce the number of services they provide. In essence, as we talked about on day 1 in Committee, these services are public services. Charities in this country have become quasi-public service providers in the last 20 years, and it is most unlikely that, in pulling back services, those services would not have to be provided by the Government elsewhere. It is therefore most unlikely that the Government will not wear the costs of this change. It is naive to assume that charities provide some other service that is not a public service or a substitute for a public service.

The Government will be well aware of the severe issues that charities are facing, following the open letter from the NCVO to express concern that three out of four charities will have to withdraw from public service delivery or are considering doing so. This is an extraordinary way to treat a sector that would provide a public service. In fact, the Government have accepted the principle that the delivery of public services should not face this tax, following the exemption of both the Civil Service and the NHS. What justification does the Minister therefore have for the exemption of some providers of public services but not charities? Charities provide close to £17 billion in public services every single year, and the services they provide are invaluable to communities across the country, so a failure to protect them would be devastating.

I support my noble friend Lady Sater’s Amendment 32 and recognise the importance of the Government fully assessing the impact that this tax increase will have on the sector. The Government owe it to charities to fully consider the impact that this will have across the sector and, as such, I hope the Government will consider both Amendments 32 and 52 very carefully as we progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Is the Minister saying that there is a misunderstanding? Where charities are providing services to the public sector above 50% of their revenue, I think, they are ruled out of claiming employment allowance. I do not understand the intricacies of that, but there is something there.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That would be a misunderstanding, yes. I just repeat that all charities benefit from the employment allowance, which this Bill more than doubles from £5,000 to £10,500.

The Government also provide wider support for charities via the tax regime. This tax regime is among the most generous in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024. Providing further relief for the sector would have additional cost implications and would require either more borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I just ask: what are the Government afraid of? This is a sensible suggestion about assessing what the effect might be of an enormous change to every business and charity organisation in the country. If it is such a good thing—we are told that it is—verify it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. It must be galling for the Minister to sit here and be lectured by the Conservative Benches because he and I so often tried to obtain information and were consistently denied it. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why there was not a greater outcry. Everybody just got so used to being denied information.

I am sure that the Minister will also be able to cite many economic crises when information was not provided—I have to say, the silence on the Conservative Benches in not calling out for that information was very loud, if I can put it that way. I am sure that, if the Conservatives were back in government again, we would get the same absence of transparency and limitations on information. There are perhaps two honourable exceptions—the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe—who stood out against their party when every other voice was one that co-operated in that silence.

That silence was part of the reason why there was so much mistrust of the Conservative Government in the end; it was part of their undermining. As the Minister and his Government start to look at reform, which they are looking at more generally—particularly in dealing with the Civil Service—looking for opportunities for transparency would be a really positive move. With information, we stand on more secure ground. Will he consider that? I have asked him that before.

It is realistic to understand that we are unlikely to get impact assessments ahead of the actions that the Government contemplate doing in the next few weeks, or just in the next couple of months, but post reviews are at least a place to begin. They shed light, and they help both the Government and Parliament to understand where things have been effective and where they have not. If the Minister feels that he cannot accept these kinds of requests for immediate impact assessments, will he consider seriously the various requests made in other groupings for post-facto analysis and review?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall just say this briefly: we need more transparency on such a major policy change, but we are not getting it. There is a large negative impact on business and charities, which is—I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes, a fellow-in-crime in asking for impact assessments—unprecedented. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell said, we are seeing a shift in jobs from the private sector to the public sector, which we fear is bad for jobs, productivity and growth. That is why we need to find a way of getting better assessment and having a process for review.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I rise briefly to offer the Green group’s support for all these amendments. Perhaps the right reverend Prelate’s amendment gives the Government a way forward that does not interfere with the general progress of the Bill but any of these would do.

I am going to make two quick points. First, I note the briefing I received from the chair of the Licensed Private Hire Car Association’s SEND group, setting out the points that have been made on how it is desperately concerned and the chaos that this national insurance rise has the potential to cause it.

Secondly, I point out that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is in the other place. There, the Government are trying to deal with, help and support children with special educational needs and disabilities, and their parents, through that Bill. Then we have this Bill, which is undoing, and creating further risks and damage. It is useful to set those two against each other. In your Lordships’ House, we often hear expert testimony about how difficult life is for children with special educational needs and disabilities and, of course, their families and parents. This is—I am going to use an informal term—such a no-brainer to sort out.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly. If I had spotted the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark in time, I would have signed it because it makes absolute sense. There is a pressure created, when one knows that a review is coming afterwards, to think through actions now. All in this Committee recognise that this Bill deals with the weakest of the weak. As there are two Bills, this one and one in the other place, either of which could be used to manage a remedy, I should have thought the Government might have been able to see a way through this.

I wanted to mention a procedural thing, just as a comment on the statement made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I hope that he realises that if he does not withdraw his amendment at this stage, he will not be able to bring it back on Report. Some people are not clear on that element of the procedure, so I mention it simply in case it guides what he might wish to do.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

His amendment is Amendment 67, so he is not going to be moving it until day four.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

He said, “I beg to move”.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

He cannot move it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Problem solved; I am back in my place. Those are the only comments that I wanted to make.

Inheritance Tax, National Insurance and VAT

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Tory Government, especially in their last years, implemented a scorched-earth strategy on public finances, and I have great sympathy for the Government in facing such an inheritance. That is why, in our election manifesto, we on these Benches listed tax increases which would have avoided the three tax changes under discussion today, none of which we support. We regard family farms as vital and often economically precarious. We are trying hard in the NICs legislation to get exemptions for the health and care sectors and for other crucial groups. We will not support a new tax on education.

However, the question for debate today is the impact on the nations and regions. I thank the Library for its work, which underscores the problem. I have spoken before about Scotland. Scottish public sector organisations will be reimbursed for employers’ NICs not on a per-job basis but based on the Barnett formula, which comes up with a much lower number. That is not within the purview of the Library discussion. Looking at the Library numbers, the north-east looks most affected by the farm inheritance tax changes, and the east of England, London and the south-east are most affected by the NICs changes and the VAT on schools. However, we cannot assess the real impact just by looking at these cost numbers, which do not reflect the underlying economic vibrancy of an area, its resilience or its dependence on particular industries, and therefore the narrower impact.

Cost and impact are different. I can intuit that thriving places such as London and university towns will cope, but existing disadvantaged areas will be far less able to do so. The Tories resisted give us the much greater detail and complex analysis that would have enabled us to understand the impact of changes in taxation and national insurance, but I turn to this Government and ask: so that we can understand these complexities, can we please have that much better analysis? In turn, it might reshape policy.

Procurement Act 2023

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I am happy to look into the point the noble Baroness raises. A new duty under the Procurement Act will require contracting authorities to have regard to small businesses, including ensuring 30-day payment terms on a broader range of contracts. We are keen to encourage more suppliers, particularly SMEs, to bid, which increases competition and should in turn support growth.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

On my noble friend’s point, I am not sure the Minister quite grasped the key issue, which is that if small businesses are required to make public their intellectual property and innovation—so that it then becomes available for much larger firms to take it over and use it without any payment—they are totally discouraged from putting forward their names for contracts to government.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I understood the point that was raised, but I did not have the answer. I apologise that I did not have the exact answer. I will go back and look into this, and I will make sure that I write to both noble Baronesses.

Bain & Company: Public Sector Contracts

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there are two aspects there. I have answered on the progress so far of the Cabinet Office review of the case following the Zondo commission. As far as the Procurement Bill is concerned, we will of course be discussing these things in Committee and later. In the Bill, we are expanding the scope of misconduct that can lead to exclusion; we are also increasing the time period within which misconduct can lead to exclusion, bringing subsidiary companies into scope of inclusion and making the rules clearer so that contracting authorities can undertake exclusions with more confidence. I look forward to engaging with the noble Baroness opposite and her colleagues in the course of the Bill, and I will seek to address the questions that she has raised as we go forward.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, unless I have badly understood, which is quite possible, Bain & Co came close to purchasing Liverpool Victoria Financial Services—the bid was finally rejected last December. What powers would the regulators have had, with their oversight of Bain & Co’s behaviour in other countries, to intervene in that potential purchase?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not familiar with the specific case that the noble Baroness raises. I will seek information and write to her in response.

Coronavirus Grant Schemes: Fraud

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we have just witnessed one of the most dramatic moments we have ever seen in your Lordships’ House, from a Minister who felt his integrity meant that he could no longer ensure he remained a member of the Government. I do not know if the noble Lord on the Front Bench wishes to comment; there is nobody else to take questions, so he may wish to just move to the next business.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, may I take this opportunity to say on behalf of these Benches how much we appreciate the honour and integrity that has just been displayed by the Minister’s resignation? His resignation has not yet been accepted, so he still remains the Minister, but I do not think anybody could have raised questions more forcefully, accurately or completely than he has. On a personal level, I want to say how much we will miss the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, in this role, not least because of his integrity.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, we must now move on.

Financial Services Act 2021 (Prudential Regulation of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms) (Consequential Amendments and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2021

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I declare a possible interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I want to put this on the record, as we are getting wide briefings at the moment. I also have some experience of the friendly society movement as a former chairman of the Tunbridge Wells Equitable Friendly Society and two Invesco investment trusts.

I particularly draw attention to paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is key. It says that

“the framework in its current form does not appropriately cater for the differences between credit institutions and investment firms and can be disproportionate”

and “burdensome”, et cetera. That seems crucial. It then goes on to mention the consultation that has been carried out. When my noble friend winds up, could he make it clear whether all parts of Part 9C rules have been produced and circulated to the interested parties, or not? Certainly, implementation on 1 January 2022 does not fill me with enthusiasm. It is after Christmas and less than a month away, so I hope he will say that they have been produced, and when.

I am sure that my noble friend and all noble Lords would feel that there are some deficiencies in UK-retained law. I seek reassurance that we are confident that those deficiencies have been removed.

The other dimension I raise relates to paragraph 12.3. It will not surprise my noble friends that, once again, I feel very strongly about impact assessments and statements from Her Majesty’s Treasury that it considers that the net impact will be less than £5 million and very limited. Paragraph 14.1 says that

“the number of small businesses in scope is low.”

They may be small businesses, but they are important businesses to whoever is running them—and we are talking about financial firms.

It is always helpful to have a review of any legislation, particularly legislation relating to our coming out of the EU. That may not be proportionate in the judgment of the Treasury, but I do not know how many firms we are talking about. If my noble friend has that information, that will be helpful. I suppose that if we are talking of only three or four, that may be right, but I do not believe that that is the number—from my experience in the City, from some of the presentations we have recently had and, indeed, from some of the publicity about what is happening in the financial sector at the moment.

Is my noble friend absolutely confident that those firms do not want the SI reviewed after a period? If they all say no—that they do not want a review and are comfortable—fine, but my judgment is that, in life, it is helpful to have a review at some point.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, obviously I will not oppose this statutory instrument, but it raises a number of issues which need to be explored, and I shall look forward to the Minister’s response to our concerns. We raised these concerns during the passage of the Financial Services Act 2021, but they have not been alleviated.

The Act and this SI transfer significant power to set the UK rules on Basel III standards to the financial regulators accompanied by minimal parliamentary oversight. It is a crucial process and has a fundamental impact on financial stability, as it sets the capital and risk management requirements for banks and other financial institutions. The PRA and the FCA are expected to consult on their decisions, and parliamentarians can contribute to those consultations, but as no more than ordinary consultees, despite their responsibilities to the public, and can at best hope for a few comments on their points as part of the general response.

Committees of Parliament can question the PRA and FCA and undertake reports but, in practice, on only a handful of issues each year, so they are likely to be visited exceedingly rarely and probably only at a time of crisis, which is rather too late. Even the SIs offer no meaningful accountability, because they cannot be amended. This SI, with the powers it gives the regulators, will mean that the issues of Basel III, so crucial to our financial structure, will probably never again come before either this House or the other place, except through that committee arrangement, which is, as I said, pretty minimal. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.

When we were members of the EU—I know mentioning that is not popular with the Government—basic Basel standards were implemented through EU law, where the process was open and accountable and as different as day from night from our current circumstance. Before the EU Commission proposed draft legislation, it held many conferences and public meetings involving parliamentarians; parliamentarians were engaged in briefings, expert evidence sessions and discussions with a wide range of relevant regulators and supervisory authorities; and the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee would be involved in scrutinising the main directive and regulations by way of co-decision. With Brexit, the power has transferred from the EU, but the Government have chosen to do it in a way that essentially removes any meaningful democratic accountability. I should like to hear for the record why the Minister has chosen such a route.

Money Laundering

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, we are certainly committed to that. I am afraid I cannot give a date yet. As the noble Lord will know, we are trying to put a huge amount of legislation through both Houses, but we recognise that it is a priority. In February this year the economic crime plan was set out. It listed seven priorities, and dealing with the issues he referred to is included there.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, any money launderer worth his or her salt is no longer going through the banks. They are basically engaged in Web3 and using decentralised finance, known as DeFi for short. Does the Minister understand that this makes even more critical the kind of register the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, just described, but also a register of the beneficial owners of property in the UK, which is frequently the way in which criminals, dictators and others choose to wash out their money?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I refer again to OPBAS, whose role is to oversee all the regulators for supervision in this area, including those that the noble Baroness refers to. We will continue to be vigilant.

UK Cash Network

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My noble friend is right that access to cash can be more difficult for those less well off. However, as he will be aware, LINK has committed to protect free-to-use ATMs more than one kilometre away from the next nearest free ATM or post office and free access to cash on high streets. It remains a priority of this Government to ensure that cash is available.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I wonder if I can press the Government, because the Bank of England is looking closely at a central bank digital currency. Many have suggested that this will be the substitute for cash in the future, but its characteristics are quite different, in many ways, from cash. Can we have an assurance from the Government that they will keep in place a cash infrastructure running alongside—if they choose it—a digital sterling?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, we are certainly looking at a digital system, but I reassure the noble Baroness that cash remains a key part of the ecosystem.

Budget Statement

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I start with a sad farewell to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I hope that her words today on the importance of investing in our children will be heard by all parties and all sides—not only by those sitting in this debate but by their colleagues. The work that she has done in this area has been important in driving the thinking within this House—again, on all Benches. So I say farewell and thank you from all of us.

On a very different note, I say to the Minister that I hope that the message has now been received that the Budget and the spending review are issues that should be debated in the main Chamber. I hope that we never see this decision to be in Grand Committee cited as a precedent for future debates on Budgets and spending reviews.

Many people who have spoken today have talked about the huge challenges facing our economy, whether they are recent through Covid or deeply embedded, and I want to capture a few of them as part of my winding summary. The OBR has confirmed that the economy is permanently severely scarred by 2% from Covid but, far more significantly, by 4% due to—as we heard in detail from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and my noble friend Lord Razzall—a loss in tax receipts of £30 billion per year as a consequence just of the Brexit scarring. In fact, several noble Lords have stated that 4% is probably a rather conservative calculation of the level of permanent damage.

UK productivity continues its malaise, repeatedly growing at something in the area of only 1.3%. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that this, in a sense, is the basis for the economic struggle that we face. Our rival economies have continued to do far better on productivity. We have to tackle that issue; it is a long-term deficiency, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, essentially discussed.

I wanted to say, however—and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, raised this question—that the Government talk about us being a high-wage economy. I know the noble Lord was afraid of the consequences if that is not driven by productivity, but may I refer him to the OBR? Its forecast shows that real wages will have grown just 2.4% between 2008 and 2024. That is not a high-wage economy, and is one of the fundamental problems that we have to address.

Business investment—mentioned by several people—continues to be weak; both foreign direct investment and domestic investment are at very low levels. According to the publication Credit Strategy,

“52% of businesses are now saddled with ‘toxic debt’”.

Of course, that is not even through all the various sectors, but many of our key sectors will be struggling with the debt burden for years to come, holding back their growth. UK corporate debt was up in 2020 from £1.9 trillion to £6.6 trillion. It is an eye-watering number.

To pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, exports to the EU are down sharply, but I say to others who have talked about new trade agreements, new opportunity and so on that, according to the forecasts, they are very far from being offset by new opportunities elsewhere. I am picking up on ONS figures. It has led to real concerns that the UK is losing overall competitiveness.

Again, as many have said, we have a rapidly ageing and increasingly dependent population. I was looking at the dependency ratio, which rose in 2020 to 57.6%, up from 51.7% in 2010; that comes from World Bank figures. The issue that lies behind this is that it is pretty much unsustainable, particularly when that dependency is coming from an older population and not a group of youngsters who will be future workers.

Taxes are the highest since the 1950s and on a path to exceed 36% of national income. However, I want to pick up the issue that my noble friend Lord Shipley raised, which is the tax burden of local councils and is not included in those tax numbers that are quoted by the OBR. There is a 5% increase in council taxes, which will be a burden distributed most unfairly under a regressive system. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, talked about completely reforming the council tax system and, again, my noble friend Lord Shipley raised the same issue. This is an area that must be fundamentally addressed because of the damage it does to many of the least well-off in our society at a critical time.

Public service net debt is forecast by the OBR to reach 98.2% of GDP and not to start falling until the end of the three-year period. It will just squeak through the Chancellor’s new rule, if the OBR numbers are right. The number that I think frightens most of us is that CPI is forecast to exceed 4%—many are now saying 5% or perhaps even higher. Because it seems to be based very much on essential purchases such as food and energy, its impact will be on the poorest in our society.

Facing all that, I hope—and I join the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in this—that the Government will now accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which was passed yesterday. It would reshape the definition of the triple lock for this year in such a way that it does not leave pensioners utterly impoverished.

If all that were not enough, we have two of the greatest existential challenges of any age: the scourge of climate change and the challenge, which has hardly been spoken about, of the digital revolution. To me, that says one thing—that we needed a transformational Budget—and what we got was simply underwhelming. There was a sort of scattering of seed as if across the bird table. There were quite a number of good things in it, and quite a number of attractive things, but nothing that could sustain an economy in the long term, just as the feed on the bird table cannot sustain birds through the entire winter.

If anyone doubts the fundamental weakness of the Budget they just need to look at the OBR forecast. This was addressed by my noble friends Lord Fox and Lord Razzall, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. It forecast growth of GDP of 1.3% in 2024 and 1.6% in 2025. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is optimistic that those numbers are fundamentally wrong, but, my goodness, that is a long shot. These are the best numbers we have to work with, and we are scared. I mentioned a list of challenges: if we had just a few of them, they would be tough to deal with in that kind of limp economic growth, but when we look at the full list—and I suspect people will add others—we are looking at a serious risk to our standard of living and, frankly, not all the hot air of boosterism will change any of that.

I shall refer to a few particular policies because I think I must. I realise that I cannot go on too long. I join others in not understanding the cruelty to the 3.5 million people on universal credit who are unable to work or able to work only part-time. They are being pushed into penury by removal of the £20 universal credit uplift, which is made worse by the pressure of inflation. All the talk about optimism will not stop people being hungry, and I pick up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, that every one of them has the right to a warm home. These issues were addressed by the noble Lords, Lord Turnbull, Lord Horam and Lord Desai. That does not mean that I do not welcome the taper in the UC rate, which will help people in work full-time, and the boost to the national living wage, but I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that it still leaves those people facing effectively a 55% marginal tax rate, which is simply unsustainable and outrageous. I also pick up the issue recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which is that national insurance starting at a much lower threshold is an additional pressure on those individuals. I quote the IFS:

“the working age benefit system is overall substantially less generous than it was in 2015.”

I am also very worried that the increases in spending for most government departments are a sort of unannouncement of previously announced budget cuts—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—and that most of the money that is being restored is for capital spend, when we desperately need day-to-day spend.

I shall finish by focusing on what I think is the key issue of the day, which is climate change. Our Government call themselves a global leader in tackling climate change. If that is their ambition, why is this not a proper net-zero Budget? It contains announcements of modest, scattergun green investments, which are all welcome, but they are insubstantial compared with our economic rivals. I shall give a direct comparison: £620 million over the next three years to encourage us to use electric vehicles and to walk and cycle. In Germany for the equivalent period there is €5.5 billion just for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. It is dramatic and transformational in Germany and in the margins in the UK.

Businesses are critical to net zero. They have told the CBI and anyone who will listen that they need a long-term fiscal plan of incentives and disincentives to reach net zero, including disincentives to support fossil fuels. Long-term fiscal certainty is the only way in which they will maximise their investment. There was no plan in the net-zero strategy. I think all of us thought it would be in the Budget but it is not.

The Chancellor’s proposals today are to use disclosure and embarrassment to get companies to push hard to net zero, but most of us in this Room are not naïve. To get businesses and the financial world to focus on delivering net zero to the timetable needs that combination of rewards and costs. It should have been in this, so we need to hear from the Government why there has been no such plan.

I would love to talk about other issues, such as reforming interest rates. I feel strongly about education. Many noble Lords said that spending per student is only just returning to 2010 levels. There is one suggestion I want to make to the Government on that: if they delayed that cut in the banker’s levy by one year, they could use that money to provide catch-up for all the kids who are struggling as a consequence of two years of inadequate education because of Covid. If they do not catch up, they will lose permanently. We have proposed that as a party and here is an opportunity to do it.

Just about everybody was displeased with this Budget in one way or another. For a brief second, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, would be fully supportive, but then he talked about the dreadful track and trace system, which wasted something close to £37 billion. The noble Baroness, Lady Foster of Oxton, said she was glad that she was not the Chancellor, but it is the job of Chancellors, in times like this, to make the transformational change, to step up to the struggle the country faces and make those big shifts. That was what was required from this Budget, but it was not what was delivered.

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

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, to the House. I think that is a maiden speech that we are all going to remember. We particularly look forward to hearing him speak on Treasury issues but also very much on mental health issues. If one had to pick two issues pertinent to our time, I would say that those must be the two. I very much welcome him but have to warn him that to go from being a banker to being a politician is to go from one much-despised profession to another. I hope he recognises that he is unlikely to have any better reception in public today than he did as his former self. We recognise his capacities and honestly and sincerely welcome him.

I join others in thanking the Minister and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for the briefings that they provided to us and particularly for the meeting that many of us were able to participate in yesterday with the relevant officials from the Treasury and the FCA. I know that I felt a much greater peace of mind at the end of that meeting. It was extremely helpful to have that level of expertise and people who have been so engaged in the process brought into that meeting with Peers.

We have always supported the essential tenets of this Bill—immunity for the administrator, synthetic Libor and provision of legal certainty that legacy contracts will remain valid. We in no way wish to challenge that. However, I am very much with my noble friend Lord Sharkey on the questions that he raised—I am not going to repeat them as this House and the Minister will now be fully aware of them—and on the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. We have to have some constructive responses to those.

I want to pick up on two questions that have particularly exercised me, although that is not to say that they are more important than the other questions. In a sense, both questions come down to the mechanism that the FCA has selected to determine synthetic Libor—how it determines the spread above the risk-free rate. As I say, I took a great deal of comfort from the conversation yesterday with the FCA but I think there must be some mechanism whereby this House should be able to scrutinise the process that leads to a mechanism of such significance. Again, it underscores the gap we have in making a regulator accountable to Parliament. I hope that the Minister will take that back. It is not a criticism of the regulator but points out the absence of an appropriate mechanism. We need to have that put in place.

My second concern has always been that cliff edge. On 31 December we will have a Libor rate created through the historic process and by the mechanism people expected to be used when they signed their various agreements. Then four days later synthetic Libor is likely to deliver a difference of something in the range of 10 basis points. I find that rather extraordinary. I hope it does not lead to the kinds of legal disputes that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has indicated would be possible. I think it could. It also somewhat disturbs me that we have not found a better way to smooth that transition. Like others who have been bankers in this House, I suspect, I have fought hours through the night for one or two basis points; 10 basis points is such a significant differential. I am delighted if the financial services industry finds this entirely acceptable but I just wonder whether it will not be rather surprised when it actually sees the number.

One of my concerns has always been that that kind of gap as a result of two different approaches to creating a Libor benchmark also indicates the potential for various financial institutions to arbitrage and game in various ways because of the difference and the change. I have taken some reassurance from the FCA trying to explain that it does not think that small individuals will be the victims of any such gaming and arbitrage. I have concerns because loans to small businesses are not regulated and therefore the FCA’s ability to monitor them is very different from its ability to monitor loans to consumers. If it is the big boys all playing games with each other, I must admit my concerns are rather fewer, but I have concerns around that area.

I am going to close because so much of what has needed to be said has been said, but I want to pick up on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I, too, feel an incredible sadness in saying farewell to Libor. Back when I was in the United States, I spent more than 10 years structuring loans and a variety of transactions—some of the earliest swaps—around Libor, and I took great pride in a benchmark that was set in London not just for sterling but for every meaningful currency across the globe and all time zones. I confess the shock that I experienced, never having worked in the City of London, only in the United States in direct lending and structuring, to find that Libor had been manipulated, and so blatantly, by major financial institutions and that it was apparently well known to their chief executives.

I was on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. Those masters of the universe were very well aware of the manipulation that was going on and, frankly, the regulator was too weak or too deferential to intervene. It was a stain on London and on financial services in the UK and I am sad that that stain still overhangs this ending of Libor. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, that there are consequences because of the loss of prestige and international standing that is attached to the disappearance of the role that London played in virtually every lending transaction across the globe. It is with sadness, and perhaps with a little bit of shame, that I stand here and speak to this Bill. We will support the Government, but we would like to see our questions answered, and we may press some of them when we get to Committee.