Road Pricing
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(4 days, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, much revenue is raised from motorists through vehicle licensing, fuel duty and indeed congestion charges. If there was a move towards raising more from road pricing, can the Minister confirm that it would be coherent and reasonable and not just a policy of soaking the motorist? I have in mind the Government’s decision to scrap our planned Conservative restrictions on low-traffic neighbourhoods, which create congestion and encourage overzealous enforcement, and the overuse of 20 mph limits that hit working people—who are rightly a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar—across the country.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness asks a hypothetical question that I have already dealt with. The Government have no plans to introduce road pricing. She mentions low-traffic neighbourhoods. We want to support local authorities to deliver streets that work for all road users and enable integrated journeys. Decisions on which neighbourhoods should be low traffic lie with local authorities.
Making Tax Digital
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(5 days, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point; the tax gap is a significant issue. Small businesses account for some 60% of that tax gap, much of which comes from unintended errors. One of the big advantages of Making Tax Digital is having more frequent reporting, and therefore there are far fewer errors. There is also the pre-population of end-of-year tax returns, which again reduces errors. If we can reduce some of those errors, we can reduce quite a significant part of the tax gap.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, in the Government’s plan for SMEs, Backing Your Business, they claim that they are prioritising growth and productivity potential—good news. However, in a Written Answer last week to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, the Government revealed that they have no idea of the level of cumulative administrative costs of regulation for small business. Does the Minister agree that before his Government impose yet more onerous regulations on small businesses, such as through the Employment Rights Bill, they should find out the existing costs of their regulatory onslaughts and do something about them?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It may surprise the noble Baroness to hear that I absolutely agree. As part of our regulation action plan, we committed to reducing the regulatory burden on businesses by 25%. We must have a benchmark from which we reduce that burden. We are engaged in doing that, and, as I said, I completely agree with the noble Baroness.
Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(5 days, 21 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument crisply and clearly. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her usual well-informed comments, including those on the digital aspects of this proposal. I think that I am, however, more in favour of growth and competition than she is.
I start by saying how important secondary legislation of this nature is. The topic of debate today is the modified reinstatement of legislation that we as a Parliament passed during the process of exiting the European Union. Now that we are able to table such legislation on our own terms, we can bring it fully in line with domestic regulations, to the benefit of British services.
Cross-border financial services must be both secure and effective. This is why having similar regulatory frameworks to collaborative countries is so important. It is all well and good having an efficient domestic system, but if that system is not aligned with foreign trading partners, markets are likely to be boxed in and limited. Some form of alignment criteria must therefore be established to allow cross-border services to function. The outline measures aims to define the parameters within which an overseas jurisdiction may be recognised as equivalent to that of the United Kingdom.
It is also welcome that His Majesty’s Treasury, in addition to the described powers of imposition or limitation of conditions on an overseas recognition regime, will now have the powers to require regulators to provide relevant information to support equivalence decisions, and will be required to co-ordinate with the relevant bodies when processing overseas recognition regime designation cases. This will help speed up and standardise the decision-making of such cases.
Although the Minister said that these powers may not be used very often, I have two questions. First, the Treasury requires either information or advice from a regulator. If it needs that, it must, by notice,
“specify a reasonable period within which the information or advice must be provided”.
What would be considered “a reasonable period”? Perhaps the Minister could clarify the timescales. We want to see efficiency in the interests of stakeholders, and we sometimes seem to be rather slow in the financial services sector. That is one of the reasons I have four Questions for Written Answer tabled today about the progress of the post-Brexit changes in financial regulation, which we initiated and would like to see the Government complete. I would be very happy to hear today how the Treasury is getting on.
Secondly, the Explanatory Memorandum states that the
“advice that the Financial Services Regulators will be asked to provide”
by the Treasury
“will be agreed on a case-by-case basis”.
The scope for this seems too wide. I am aware that it is specified in the legislation that advice may be given only in relation to an overseas recognition regime designation, or a proposal for one, but the breadth of these designations seems wide. Will the Minister consider issuing some further guidance on the extent of the information that the Treasury is able to ask for in the name of ORR designations?
I look forward to the Minister’s response. In closing, I say that the Official Opposition support the statutory instrument and the measures to encourage a growing, healthy, open—in the Minister’s words—and competitive UK financial sector.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their detailed comments and scrutiny, as well as for their support for this secondary legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked a number of questions, which I will seek to address. First, she initially expressed her surprise that the Treasury required these new powers. I am told that this instrument replaces a similar instrument: the Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave the Treasury the power to request information from the regulators when considering decisions under assimilated equivalence regimes. The Treasury has exercised the powers contained in the 2019 regulations in support of equivalence decisions made since our EU exit. To date, no new decisions have been taken under any ORR, meaning that the powers in this instrument being introduced today have not yet been required.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also spoke about her concerns—we have discussed them before in the main Chamber—around the Government’s overall agenda of rebalancing from risk towards growth and competitiveness. As the noble Baroness knows, the Chancellor has expressed her clear view that she wants to see greater emphasis on growth and competitiveness, but she has absolutely discussed how central the financial services sector is to the Government’s modern industrial strategy and the key role that it plays in financing growth across the economy. She remains committed to the highest standards of regulation and does not see those things as being in tension—the noble Baroness knows that; we have discussed it before. I do not necessarily agree with the noble Baroness’s concerns, in that there is absolutely no question of a race to the bottom on regulation. The UK will remain a global leader in promoting the highest standards that deliver for businesses and consumers across the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked a specific question about how the process will work and whether it is becoming too politicised. I do not think that that is the case. Many other countries have similar regimes; for example, the US makes comparability assessments. As I said in my opening remarks, the EU has equivalence, and our recognition process is consistent with international norms. Our guidance document sets out our approach. We have been clear that robust standards, safeguarding outcomes and technical advice from our expert regulators are all key factors in decisions on whether to designate another jurisdiction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also asked about publishing regulator advice. The Treasury will always, as part of its designation process, summarise the evidence that it has received and considered in relation to the other jurisdictions’ regulatory frameworks.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her support for this statutory instrument. The drive towards growth and competitiveness, and the importance of this sector in doing that, is one of the rare areas on which we agree. I am also grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for the Mansion House announcements that the Chancellor made, building, as all Chancellors do, on the previous Chancellor’s work in this area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, she asked two questions: one about timescales and another about speed. Unfortunately, I cannot read the answer that has been given to me. I will ask my team whether we have an answer on the scope of the designations. I will write to the noble Baroness on the two points that she made, if she does not mind.
Economic Growth
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(6 days, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this is a different world. Given that the economy is actually struggling to gain momentum, as every serious economic commentator is saying, thanks to the Government’s disastrous tax and regulatory policies, will the Minister answer my noble friend Lord Leigh’s questions? Will the Minister think again on the Employment Rights Bill, conveniently now coming back to the House? Will he answer my noble friend’s very good question on per capita growth, which, as the Minister and I have often agreed, is the key to success?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The answer to the first of the noble Baroness’s questions is no. As for the second question, she says she is interested in growth but let us look at just one measure that we are taking. Our planning reforms have the largest impact on growth of any non-fiscal measure the OBR has ever scored. Yet her party, evening after evening in this place, is doing every single thing it possibly can to hold up and obstruct our planning Bill in your Lordships’ House. Is that the action of a party that wants to grow the economy? Our capital spending increases economic growth. In this month’s GDP figures, we can see the effect it is having on driving new infrastructure work. Yet her party opposes the changes to the fiscal rules that make that possible. She says she wants growth but at every single turn, she opposes the measures this Government are taking to get that growth.
Pension Funds: Use of UK-listed Investment Companies
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and pay tribute to her for her expertise in this matter and her continued campaigning. As I have said before, the Mansion House accord is an industry-led agreement. The Government are not participants in it. The proposed backstop powers in the legislation that she refers to are not intended to be open-ended but are designed to be capable of being a backstop to the commitments that pension companies themselves have made through the Mansion House accord. It makes sense for those powers to align with the commitments that have been included by the companies and the industry itself. Nevertheless, as I have said already, I am grateful for constructive engagement on this issue. As we take the Bill through Parliament, representations like the ones the noble Baroness has just made, and those of the wider sector, will be considered alongside our broader policy objectives.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we the Official Opposition understand the attraction of strengthening the economy and strengthening pension funds by investment in infrastructure. However, the Pensions Management Institute said last week that it believes the reserve—that is the mandation power in the Pension Schemes Bill—sets a “dangerous precedent” for political interference with trustees’ fiduciary duties. It warned that the Government’s proposals would deliver poor outcomes for savers. Does this not concern the Minister?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and her broad support for the Government’s agenda. This is an area where, aside from the specific issue that she raises in her question, we are in agreement that we want to see greater investment in UK infrastructure in this way. I do not agree with the specific point about savers. The measures contained within the Bill will see far greater returns for savers. That is incredibly important and lies behind a lot of the measures that we are taking.
On the specific reserve power, obviously we are very encouraged by the Mansion House accord. It builds on the existing Mansion House compact, set up by the previous Chancellor in the previous Government. In the light of this progress, the pensions review concluded it was not necessary currently to mandate investment. Instead, the Bill includes a reserve power, which will, only if necessary, enable the Government to set quantitative baseline targets for pension schemes to invest in a broader range of assets, including in the UK, for the benefit of savers and for the benefit of the economy. The Government do not anticipate exercising the power unless they consider that the industry has not delivered the necessary change on its own.
Gilt Yields
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the recent rise in gilt yields, and what contingency plans they have in place to manage any further rise.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, as is long-standing convention, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. Gilt yields are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors. The Government are committed to economic stability and sound public finances. The fiscal rules are non-negotiable and economic growth is our number one priority.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord is generally dismissive of criticism of economic policy, but the bond markets do not lie and their current verdict is crushing, with borrowing rates at a 27-year high. Sterling also slid this morning. Will the Government even now change course, adopt measures that really support growth and drop policies that destroy growth, such as the Employment Rights Bill and the destruction of the North Sea oil and gas industries?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As she will know, recent gilt yield movements have risen in line with global peers, mainly driven by global factors. The recent gilt market moves have also been orderly. As she knows, our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and we have a clear plan in place to put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. She talks about the position of the UK economy; she knows that this is an uncertain and volatile global economy, but even so the UK remains resilient and is outperforming our peers. The UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year and our commitment to stability is paying off, creating space for the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times since the election, with business confidence now at its highest level for 12 months.
Financial Services Reform
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the proposed changes outlined by the Government in what they are calling their Leeds reforms are broadly to be welcomed. It is essential to get the balance right between protection and risk. Like the Government, we accept the analysis that while financial prudence is important, we have moved too far towards protection and away from delivering economic growth and competitiveness. It is right that we take steps to facilitate our financial services sector, which contributes 9% of economic output. However, I have to take some issue with the tone that the Government have adopted when introducing these proposals. The Government have spoken of our country “thriving” and of our nation “benefiting”. The statistics tell a different story.
The ONS reported last week that the rate of UK unemployment increased to 4.7% in the three months to May, up from 4.6%, and, meanwhile, average earnings growth has slowed to 5% in the period to May, its lowest level for almost three years. GDP contracted 0.1% in May and 0.3% in April. Inflation has risen beyond all expectations to 3.6%. Industry experts have said that the UK’s economic situation is simply staggering. They have said that the Government’s management of economy has been dire and that the Chancellor has to seriously rethink her policies. Perhaps most worrying of all, yesterday we saw the second-highest June borrowing figures since records began, with spending exceeding income by over £20 billion and debt interest now at 96% of GDP.
I turn to the reforms. The hard-hitting recent report by the Financial Services Regulation Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, outlined how the Government could support the FCA and the PRA in meeting their vital secondary objective of supporting the UK’s international competitiveness and medium to long-term growth. I am pleased that the Government have bowed to the spirit of this cross-party report and implemented several important ideas, such as reform of the Financial Ombudsman Service, improvements in product authorisation rates—including those for high-growth fintechs—and in the senior managers and certification regime.
These approvals are all too slow in my experience as a non-executive director. Moreover, as the report makes clear, the truth is that firms are inundated with information requests from the FCA and the PRA and the burden of compliance in the UK is perceived to be disproportionately high. So these are welcome steps, and we agree that things must change. However, the Minister will not be surprised to know that my first question is: how quickly will these changes take place?
I cannot hope to cover all that was announced last week in the other place and at Mansion House. We need a proper debate for that. However, I would like to tease out some detail. First, we were told that the Government were considering reforming the individual savings account system. They have already said that they will allow long-term asset funds to be held in stocks and shares ISAs next year. Is this only one of the changes under review? How will the Government support funds to invest in such projects? How will the relevant information be communicated to retail investors? Can the Minister confirm what the Government’s plans are for cash ISAs? Without clarity on this question, the Government risk undermining their own efforts to promote home ownership and hitting customers who rely on cash ISAs for their investments.
Secondly, on financial education, both the Government and the Opposition are clear that we need to stimulate investment and support our financial services sector. These reforms take us some way, but there remains the question of how we can create a culture of investment in our country. We have seen an uptick in the rates of retail investment, stimulated in part by online trading platforms. But for many people, the idea of investing their money is concerning and the language technical, dense and confusing. We need a society in which people understand the possibilities and risks better and actively invest their money across a wider range of products, not letting it sit largely dormant.
Education needs to start in schools, where children can be taught about markets, savings, investment, even pensions, and how to make best use of their money. The report for the Financial Services Regulation Committee, which I mentioned earlier, highlights the poor financial literacy that is prevalent in the UK. Can the Minister outline the steps that the Government are taking to support people across the UK to become retail investors and how they are educating our citizens so that they are willing and able to take responsible investment decisions? Above all, does the Minister agree that this education has to start in school lives? What steps will he take with colleagues in the Department for Education to do this more effectively?
Thirdly and finally, we need more clarity from the Government on pensions. Since last week a revival of the Pensions Commission has been announced; it will involve the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, whose expertise on pensions is so much appreciated here. However, I have a concern that this further review risks delaying action and creating uncertainty for businesses and savers. There are serious and urgent questions around pensions adequacy, as the OBR forcibly reminded us on 8 July. What will the Government do, and do soon, to capture those who do not benefit from auto-enrolment and/or save too little for their retirement? What is the timing of the Government’s plans to encourage pension funds to use more of their capital to support growth and infrastructure at home? The clock is ticking.
To sum up, the financial services reforms are in the right direction, but the UK’s financial position is troubling and may be deteriorating. I am sure that we will return to these concerns all too soon.
Tackling Unsustainable Debt
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not know the specific answer to the noble Lord’s question, I am afraid. I am very happy to write to him to fill that in. As I have said, the action we are taking at a multilateral level is proven to be the most effective route that we can take to tackle these issues.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that many countries themselves now need to focus on tackling their debt, which can so easily become unsustainable? That obviously includes countries in the global South and, indeed, much closer to home, where a tick back up in inflation risks increasing debt servicing costs. We have a debt problem on a wide scale.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct in saying that debt sustainability is the primary responsibility of borrowing countries, but I think lending countries such as the UK also have an important role to play in supporting these efforts through providing capacity-building support, following best practice in sustainable lending and pressing for reform of internationally agreed frameworks on assessing debt sustainability. In line with the UK’s commitment to the OECD sustainable lending practices, the UK considers debt sustainability when providing financing, particularly in cases of lending to countries deemed at high risk of debt distress.
Taxes
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We listen carefully to all Budget representations, but as I say, I will not speculate on the next Budget now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the fact is that we are all too close to a fiscal and economic crisis, much of which this Government have created. Debt interest is now a substantial proportion of departmental expenditure, productivity is flatlining and by 2028-29 the tax burden will be at its highest level in the country’s peacetime history. Does the Minister recognise that further tax rises are not the path to sustainable recovery? Will he affirm that he recognises that taxing people and taxing businesses ever more heavily will only undermine our productive capacity and further reduce the growth we all want?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness has a rather selective memory: she seems to have forgotten about the last 14 years. But she is quite right that the most sustainable way to repair the public finances is through growing the economy. At the last fiscal event, the OBR scored our planning reforms as the biggest increase in growth of any non-fiscal measure, and we hope very much that it will continue to score our growth measures. As she says, that is the most sustainable way of repairing the public finances.
Tourism Levy
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend rightly points to different cities that have different systems in place. I think I said that different places in different countries choose to raise revenue from overnight visitors in different ways, depending on whether they are seeking to attract them, to accommodate the results of their visits or to deter them from coming. As I have said a number of times, we have no present plans to introduce visitor levy powers in England.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that it is desirable to impose further costs on visitors to our seaside and coastal towns; nor will it incentivise them to come in greater numbers. We need to encourage visitors to these areas, not to discourage or tax them—as, happily, the Minister seems to be saying. A far better incentive for our seaside towns would be for the Government to reverse the devastating tax increases that they imposed recently on the hospitality industry, particularly with regard to national insurance. Given the hit to employment in that sector, do the Government have any revised plans to help with this difficult situation?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness rightly talks about the importance of the visitor economy. The Tourism Minister has set a goal to grow inbound tourism to 50 million visitors annually by 2030. To help achieve this, DCMS has established a new visitor economy advisory council, which is currently helping to co-create a visitor economy growth strategy, due to be published in the autumn. The strategy endeavours to share the benefits of tourism across every nation and region, including coastal and seaside areas.
The noble Baroness speaks about national insurance increases; it is only a few weeks since we stood here and she supported all the spending in the spending review that that national insurance is funding, so she probably needs to make up her mind whether she supports the spending or does not support the tax that pays for it. As I have already said, we introduced a number of the policies in the Budget to help this sector, including freezing the business rates small business multiplier, together with the small business rates relief. This will exempt over a third of properties from business rates.