Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe on her appointment. It is great to see her back on the Front Bench. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, on her excellent maiden speech. It is wonderful to see her here. I regret very much that we heard the valedictory speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. We shall all miss him.

We are at last waking up from the make-believe world we have lived in for a decade or so. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, it is a world where we became deluded into thinking that cheap money would last for ever and that inflation was safely behind bars. Far from being transitory, as we were confidently told, inflation is now running amok, seeping into the pores of our economy.

As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said, the Bank has questions to answer. For example, why did it take so long to kick the addiction to QE, raise rates and send an unequivocal, clear message that it will do whatever it takes, however painful, to keep prices down? It also needs to clarify how its current £65 billion bond-buying programme has nothing to do with monetary policy, as it claims, even though it seems to be using QE to do so.

That is the first delusion that has fallen. The second has been called out by the Prime Minister. She is entirely, 100% right to say that high taxes risk snuffing out growth and enterprise. The problem is that we—this and successive Governments—have been putting taxes up: in just two years, Boris Johnson raised taxes by more than Gordon Brown did in 10.

So this Prime Minister has my full support in calling time on higher taxes, not just corporation tax but also the dreaded IR35. But—and there is a “but”—taxes are high because spending is high, and it is getting higher still. Here we are only just beginning to wake up to reality. Before the energy package was announced, Mr Sunak said his last Budget increased total departmental spending over this Parliament by £150 billion. That is the largest increase this century.

That is the backdrop to this debate. As we look ahead, if we want to lower taxes, as I do; if you believe that you cannot borrow your way to growth, as I do; and if you want to bring inflation down, as I do, we must all be very honest about spending. If we are not, we risk taking a gamble we cannot afford. Thanks to our living in this make-believe world for so long, borrowing is already high and risks rising higher thanks to the soaring cost of servicing our debt.

Let me give one fact on why this is such a risk. We have the highest proportion of index-linked debt in the G7. It is 25%, which is five times what it is in Germany. Add to that the risk of rising rates and it is not surprising that the OBR forecasts that this year debt interest costs might hit a record high of £83 billion. That is getting on for double what we spend on defence—and it was forecast in March, before the impact of the last few weeks. An average RPI rate of 15% next year would boost borrowing costs to almost £130 billion, and that does not include the cost of rising rates.

So, when my noble friend stands up, I would like him to assure us unequivocally that if we are going to proceed with tax cuts, which I would love to see, a coherent plan will be published on 31 October that sets out how our finances will be put on a sustainable, stable footing. I would also like him to assure us that we will not try to borrow our way to growth, as that is part of the make-believe world I hope we have left behind.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not present during Committee.

When I was a student, a young person doing A-levels in Uganda, there was a question: “How are the people of the United Kingdom governed?” The book said, “The people of the United Kingdom are governed by the Queen in Parliament under God”, and went on, “and the sovereign is Parliament.” If Parliament is the ultimate authority, to deny it the possibility of agreeing to the Dissolution of Parliament seems bizarre. If it is not, who has the ultimate authority? The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that the Government could be paralysed and could not govern, but governance can happen only if those in the Executive are accountable and transparent to Parliament. If they are not, we are creating a body of people who think they are not answerable for their decisions to Parliament—that they are the ones who give it legitimacy. They may find themselves paralysed because, for whatever reason, they cannot obtain a majority. We heard that lady in Bristol when the election was announced in 2017. She said, “Not another election!” People are fed up with ad hoc solutions that often do not help.

I support the noble Lord, the Convenor of my group, who has provided a simple solution. If the Government cannot obtain a simple majority for Parliament to be dissolved, so be it. As for the calling of elections regardless because you are not getting your legislation through, well, if Parliament is objecting and it is sovereign, it requires a bit of humility to say, “We did not get it this time; maybe next year.” I plead for this simple amendment, which would resolve all the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, talked about—of the power of the sovereign and the power of the courts. Of course, the courts will intervene if something illegal has been done. Do noble Lords remember the Brexit question, when there was a desire that it should be done through the royal prerogative, the old King Henry VIII powers? The court said, “No. The act to enter into these negotiations was an Act of Parliament, and if you want to do away with it, it is Parliament that must consent for that to be done.” That was when the courts intervened, by the way.

I, for one, support this simple way to resolve the problem that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act created, but we surely cannot go back to the power of the Prime Minister as if Prime Ministers are not accountable to Parliament: they are.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, first, I apologise that I was not able to speak in Committee. I did, however, read the very interesting debate, and I am extremely sorry to say that I find myself at odds with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I think he and I wholeheartedly share a concern about the creeping, stealthy growth in the size of the state and of the Executive. I have spoken on this before and I will always stand up with him to oppose it.

Also, I fear that I am taking on my former boss, my noble friend Lord Lansley, on this matter. Listening to them, I feel, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, that they are making some very beguiling arguments. As we have just heard, what is being suggested in the amendment sounds very simple. We could be in The Jungle Book, facing Kaa and his big eyes: it is a simple, big thought that we can just introduce this amendment and all will be well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having attended previous debate on the Bill, but I want to make just two simple points. First, it is not true that the problems of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act were not foreseen. They were foreseen and explicitly raised by many Members on this side of the House. Secondly, however, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has encapsulated the difference between the two sides of this argument. In particular, I ask him to reflect seriously on his statement that we want power flowing from the ballot box to the Executive. That is completely contrary to the constitution of this country. Indeed, not only is it contrary to that, but it is enormously dangerous, because any system—

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

What I want is a system where, if the Prime Minister wishes to call a general election, that election happens and we get to the situation in which we can trust the people. That is where I wish to see the power flowing.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Out of courtesy to the noble Lord, I will check the record, but my distinct recollection was that he said that we want a system where power flows from the ballot box to the Executive. Not only is that contrary to everything we believe, by omitting Parliament in the middle of it, but it is the basis of every bad dictatorship that Europe has produced—referendums and power flowing from the ballot box to the Executive. That is the extreme case or course, but it is, in essence, precisely the difference between the arguments on the two sides today, in which we believe that on major issues, which now in the British Parliament include the declaration of war, the people who should make the decision at the end of the day are those in Parliament, not the Executive. All the power that the Executive receives is because they can control or, rather, call on a majority in Parliament. Should the Executive cease to have the confidence of Parliament, whether on policy, war, peace or the Dissolution of Parliament, the Executive cannot proceed unless they can change the mind of Parliament. That is a simple argument that applies to the most important things that Parliament can decide. I would argue that the Dissolution of Parliament is one of those issues.

Legislation: Skeleton Bills and Delegated Powers

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, on securing this debate and her masterful speech, as well as the two committees on their excellent, hard-hitting reports.

I am conscious that, unlike many speaking today, I am not a constitutional expert, nor am I a lawyer. That said, what I do know is that although much of what we are talking about may sound abstract, this debate —about the power of Parliament versus the Executive and the processes that underpin our democracy—has a direct impact on all our lives. If those processes that underpin scrutiny and accountability are not cherished and nurtured, and the Executive are allowed to chip away at them, the freedoms that we all take for granted risk being eroded. My concern is that this is happening thanks to a subtle but profound shift in the culture of government over the last 30 years—a shift that is having a big impact on process and, therefore, on democracy itself.

Politicians’ lax approach to Cabinet government has led to sofa government and the rise in the power of unaccountable special advisers. The 24-hour media cycle, turbocharged by social media, fuels hysterical calls that something must be done to tackle a problem or Ministers’ demands for an eye-catching initiative. Process, precedent, accountability and scrutiny are all seen as mere irritants that get in the way of action.

Having worked in No. 10—many moons ago with my noble friend the Minister and more recently as a Minister—I know only too well what happens. To manage a crisis on the evening news or a Twitter storm, a press release is cobbled together, which spawns a piece of legislation barely longer than the press release itself, which then gives rise to a skeleton Bill full of delegated powers. This creates the issues that these excellent reports touched on and which the First Parliamentary Counsel delicately mentioned in her evidence when she talked about the

“practical or political drivers to bringing forward the legislation at a particular time”

and the “great demand for legislation”.

As has just been said, delegated powers are necessary. But we now have a culture in which Ministers either push for, or allow, half-baked legislation—not, as the Prime Minister might call it, “oven-ready” legislation—to be brought to Parliament. The fact that Mr Rees-Mogg could find, in the mountain of Acts passed, only one example of legislation—the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act—to justify skeleton Bills makes me conclude that we must act to stop this culture of creating more skeleton bills and turning Parliament into a graveyard of democracy.

Cultural change take years, but processes can be changed quickly. Let me ask my noble friend—he is an old friend who I know is a steadfast defender of parliamentary democracy—a simple question: does he agree that it should be made explicitly clear to Ministers and the Civil Service that skeleton Bills are, in the words of the report, “rarely justifiable” and, if so, that this is written explicitly into the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation? That would begin to put the genie back in the bottle.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Leicester on his excellent maiden speech and what he has done at Holkham. I have spent many happy times there. Well, they were sort of happy. I was with my 13 year-old son trying to spot lapwings. I am not a bird-watcher and it was very cold, but it was very enjoyable—apart from us not seeing anything at that point.

If anyone wants to know why constitutional reform matters, one has only to listen to this debate and consider the rather miserable history of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I am sorry to tread on the toes of my noble friend Lord Young but I share a belief in what he may see as a slightly cynical rationale behind this, which others have spoken of. For proof of that, one need only consider how and where this Act was born. It was conceived in the heat of the rose garden romance, and it was born in the political back room of the deal that was done around the coalition. Sir Oliver Letwin, the midwife of that coalition, has testified that the Act

“was to enable the coalition to be formed. One of the principal demands of the Liberal Democrat side of the coalition, when we came to discuss the whole proposition, was that there should be no ability for the larger of the two parties—the Conservative Party—within a coalition Government to spot the moment when it would be convenient to ditch the coalition by seeking a dissolution.”

With due respect to my noble friend, I see that deal as a dark day for our Conservative Party, which I thought would not treat the constitution as a bargaining chip in political horse-trading.

Of course, some tried to give the Act more credibility, as others have today, by dressing it up in the clothes of constitutional theory. The best example of this was Mr Nick Clegg, former representative of the hard-working people of Sheffield Hallam, now representing the billionaires of Silicon Valley. It is worth reminding ourselves of what he said when he presented the then Fixed-term Parliaments Bill at Second Reading:

“There will be no more feverish speculation over the date of the next election, distracting politicians from getting on with running the country. Instead everyone will know how long a Parliament can be expected to last, bringing much greater stability to our political system. Crucially, if, for some reason, there is a need for Parliament to dissolve early, that will be up to the House of Commons to decide. Everyone knows the damage that is done when a Prime Minister dithers and hesitates over the election date, keeping the country guessing. We were subjected to that pantomime in 2007. All that happens is that the political parties end up in perpetual campaign mode, making it very difficult for Parliament to function effectively. The only way to stop that ever happening again is by the reforms contained in the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/9/10; col. 621.]


I only hope that Mr Clegg gives Mr Mark Zuckerberg better predictions, for we all know what happened two years later: feverish speculation over the date of the election, distracted politicians unable to get on with running the country, and no one sure how long the Parliament would last. What was the reason for that parliamentary gridlock? As others have said, before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act reared its head we had a simple system, which my noble friend Lord Norton set out. In essence, when a Prime Minister lost the confidence of the other place, there would be a general election and, if the Prime Minister chose to call a general election, we would have one. Those two simple thoughts fuse into one big point, which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde made: trust the people. If the people’s representatives lose confidence in the Government, or if the Prime Minister wishes to renew the Government’s mandate, it is the people who are put back in control. No faction in Parliament or judge in a court could prevent that from happening.

That was the system which we had before. Therefore, it is entirely right that we should go back to it. I agree that trying to turn the clock back—or, perhaps more aptly in this case, trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube—obviously raises all manner of legal questions which I know set racing the pulses of noble Lords, and especially noble and learned Lords. On a matter as important as this, of course it is right that we kick the tyres of what is proposed. At first, I was quite queasy, as others are, when I read of the ouster clause. However, the more I read—not as a lawyer—the more I sensed that this is an exceptional issue on which an ouster makes sense.

I hear the points about Article 9 of the Bill of Rights, but in this case, we should leave it beyond all doubt that the courts cannot thwart an election. To achieve that aim, I have yet to hear any credible alternatives to the ouster clause as written in the Bill, so I would keep it as it is. Sir Stephen Laws told the Joint Committee:

“It would be nice to have neatly focused ouster clauses that you could justify in relation to what they actually apply to. But that is not a thing that is possible anymore, because if you try and draw some distinction as to where the ouster clause will or will not apply, you will end up with the courts using that distinction in order to circumvent the ouster you are intending to create.”


The Dissolution Principles document strikes me as also obviously necessary, and I was pleased that the Government have accepted that the Prime Minister requests a Dissolution. The document’s simplicity is critical. Trying to enshrine the Lascelles principles, or codify what is to happen in a multitude of scenarios, would create complexity and uncertainty, and could do what we all wish to avoid: drag the monarch into politics.

Let me end where I began. A previous Government ran headlong into constitutional reform, riding roughshod over processes and conventions that may have had flaws but maintained that clear link between Parliament and people. The sooner we get back to the previous system and restore that link, the better.

Finance Bill

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I have the honour of chairing the Finance Bill Sub-Committee and I start by thanking all its members, a number of whom I see here today; I look forward to hearing their remarks. I especially thank our excellent clerk and superb special advisers for all their hard work, energy and commitment.

Last December we published a report which scrutinised a range of new powers sought by HMRC and called it New Powers for HMRC: Fair and Proportionate?, with a question mark—an all-important question mark. To answer that question, we identified a number of principles that we believe should apply to any new power given to HMRC. The power must have a clear policy objective and justification, and it must be simple, targeted, proportionate and have appropriate safeguards and sanctions. With those principles in mind, let me focus my remarks on the powers we examined included in this Finance Bill.

The first is the power to tackle promoters and enablers of tax avoidance, under Clauses 121 to 123. These clauses need to be seen against the backdrop of the loan charge, which has ensnared thousands of people—many on low incomes—who entered disguised remuneration schemes, often at the behest of their employers, only to find themselves clobbered years later with enormous tax bills that many now find difficult to pay. Now is not the time for me to go into the loan charge in detail, although our committee remains very focused on it.

Regarding these clauses, of course we support action to clamp down on the hard core of promoters of tax avoidance schemes. But the committee was unconvinced that these plans would be sufficient to tackle that hard core of promoters who continue to promote these schemes, and so the effectiveness of existing measures must be kept under review and all the weapons in HMRC’s arsenal should be brought to bear on them. For example, we reiterated our view, first expressed way back in 2018, that alerting taxpayers to these schemes via HMRC’s spotlights on GOV.UK is not enough. That is especially so given that promoters have been targeting medical professionals returning to the NHS during the pandemic. Given that, we recommended that HMRC focus its attention on employers, employment intermediaries and the umbrella companies using these schemes. Specifically, we said that a first step should be that no public sector bodies should contract with an employment intermediary that operates disguised remuneration schemes.

In light of all this, I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister. If he cannot answer when he winds up, perhaps he could answer in writing. First, could he tell us how many of these hardcore promoters still exist? Secondly, in 2019-20, HMRC doubled its resources in this area. What will be spent on this agenda in future—in this financial year? Thirdly, a new communications campaign targeted at contractors was launched in November 2020. How is that progressing and how is success being measured?

Finally, on umbrella companies, a recent “File on 4” BBC investigation revealed that around 48,000 mini umbrella companies have been formed in the last five years, fronted by 40,000 people in the Philippines to exploit the employment allowance scheme. Meanwhile, the implementation of IR35 and the impact of the pandemic has reportedly led to a surge in the use of such companies by contractors. One survey found that 71% of workers deemed inside IR35 were moved under an umbrella company ahead of the off-payroll working rules extension into the private sector in April. Given all that, can the Minister tell us whether there are any plans to regulate umbrella companies?

Let me move on to the second topic the committee focused on, which related to the civil information powers in Clause 126. These will allow HMRC to obtain information about taxpayers from financial institutions to charge the right amount of tax and enforce payment. There are two safeguards in HMRC’s current power: the need for tax tribunal approval before information can be required and a right of appeal for financial institutions where provision of information is unduly onerous. These have been discarded on the basis that the process takes too long which, according to the Government and HMRC, means delays in meeting information requests from other countries.

Our committee expressed concerns about the Government’s approach when it was first proposed back in 2018. In this recent inquiry, we concluded that the removal of safeguards was unjustified as cases involving international information requests were only a very small minority—less than 15% of the total—and the tribunal referral does not significantly add to the timescale. I will not ask my noble friend the Minister any questions on this, but simply note that the committee recommended that the safeguards be restored as their removal is wrong in principle and not supported by the evidence in practice.

The third topic our committee looked at was the

“New tax checks on licence renewal applications”

in Clause 125. This measure will make the renewal of licenses for running taxi and private hire services and for scrap metal traders conditional on being tax compliant. It therefore introduces a new concept of conditionality into our system. Our committee questioned how effective this proposal was likely to be, since those non-compliant for tax might also be non-compliant for licensing and tax checks might drive more to be non-compliant for licensing. The result could be mainly to impose additional burdens on the already compliant rather than to tackle non-compliance. The Government have failed to produce evidence to support applying conditionality in these instances. Furthermore, the condition is to apply to all applications for licenses, not just those applying for the first time as was proposed in the original consultation.

Taking a step back, these three measures are at best, in my mind, a mixed bag. One can draw from them some general lessons, which our report highlighted. Existing powers should be used properly before new ones are requested. Focus should be put on non-legislative action. The tax policy consultation framework should be observed. There should be clear evidence to support the need for a new power. Powers must be proportionate and targeted, with adequate safeguards. Those are all principles that should always be abided by.

That brings me to an issue that our committee has not yet focused on: Clause 129, which covers reporting rules for digital platforms. What I am about to say is my view and not that of the committee. I am sure we would all agree that our tax system, rooted in the analogue age, needs a reboot to meet the challenges of the digital era. Digital platforms must pay the taxes they owe in the countries where they operate. Likewise, sellers of goods and services on those platforms should also pay the taxes they owe. Clause 129 will give HMRC the power to require certain UK digital platforms to report information to HMRC about the income of sellers of services on those platforms. The platforms in questions are taxi and private hire services, food delivery services, freelance work—a very broad term—and the letting of short-term accommodation. We may all agree with the objective of ensuring that businesses pay the tax they owe on services they sell online, but I draw your Lordships’ attention to this, because Parliament is going to give the Treasury power to make these regulations, despite the fact there has been no consultation at all. It has yet to begin, despite the fact that, according to the Government, this power could affect up to 5 million businesses which provide their services via digital platforms. We are giving this power, despite the fact that the cost of the regulations is unknown. Although the impact for each seller is expected to be small, the Government states that it

“is expected to have a significant combined impact.”

Here is why:

“Data, including bank account information if the platform holds that information, will be collected and provided to HMRC, and exchanged with other tax authorities when appropriate. This information will be used to identify and risk assess the individual or company.”


The policy paper also states:

“This measure is likely to significantly increase customer costs for some of the businesses affected.”


Note this: it says that sellers of goods

“may be affected at a later stage, subject to consultation.”

Digitising our tax system is laudable. It is a necessity, but this is no way to proceed. It is the way mistakes are made, and the Government would do well, I suggest, to heed the words of the playwright Sheridan, who wrote over 200 years ago:

“First there comes the act imposing the tax; next comes an act to amend the act for imposing the tax; then comes an act to explain the act that amended the act, and next an act to remedy the defects of the act for explaining the act that amended the act.”


This is a horrible, familiar process that we are all too well aware of in this House. I would just gently say to my noble friend the Minister that he needs to justify why HMRC is being given this power without proper consultation. How can he justify taking a power, the cost and impact of which is unknown? Once again, HMRC’s remit appears to be growing, without consultation, without evidence, without real scrutiny. Is it fair? Is it proportionate? We do not know.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure indeed to welcome my noble friend Lord Hammond of Runnymede to this House and to congratulate him on his excellent speech. Runnymede is, of course, a place where a bunch of irate barons got together, incensed by high levels of tax they were having to pay to fund the war with France. Disgruntled Peers, cross about the impact that relations with Europe were having on their nation—not much changes, does it?

I turn to the matter in hand and draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. As has been said, the Bill arrives in this House at a key juncture for the UK’s financial services sector. In the post-Brexit world, it is more critical than ever that we keep our financial services competitive, as others have said, and remain a globally competitive financial centre. Some may think that the best way to do that is to ensure that our regulations remain, as far as possible, aligned to the EU’s. That approach overall would be unwise and unrealistic. It would be unwise because it is in our national interest to chart our own course for our financial services sector—a goose that lays so many of our golden eggs. The approach would be unrealistic because the EU wants to build up its own financial services and therefore, in the words of my noble friend Lord Hill, whom the noble Lord, Lord Reid, quoted a moment ago, the EU will not seek to do us any favours. We would soon find out that our interests and those of our EU friends would be at odds.

Instead, we need to have the confidence that comes from the City being—to quote Mark Carney—the EU’s investment banker and a global financial epicentre that existed well before the European Union was dreamt of. We need to look to a future that is green, a future that is digital and a future that is full of opportunities. We must strengthen our position in this new world. To achieve that, Ministers and regulators must focus on how our regulatory system can help to strengthen our competitiveness. As my noble friend Lord Hunt has just said, competitiveness was one of the regulator’s objectives but was removed after the financial crash and, as has been mentioned, the Government are now consulting on whether to reinsert competitiveness as an objective. It is a pity that that consultation is still underway, given its relevance to the Bill. I will be pressing the Minister on that point.

Of course—let me make this very clear—we should not forget the lessons that we learnt from 2008, nor should we race to the bottom in terms of regulations. Robust regulation is the bedrock of strong financial services but we must not get trapped in the past and regulate entirely via the rear-view mirror. Look overseas: regulators’ objectives have been adjusted since the financial crisis but without abandoning competitiveness altogether. Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and Malaysia have competitiveness or growth as a regulatory objective or principle.

We need to look ahead and plan ahead. We must properly balance the need for stability with the need to be competitive so that the UK is innovative, dynamic and a great place to do business. I do not agree with the false choice contained in the Government’s consultation, which states that,

“a new competitiveness objective could distract from or dilute the key stability, market integrity and consumer protection objectives.”

We can and should strive to be both competitive and stable as a financial centre. Nor is the new so-called accountability framework sufficient. Requiring the PRA to consider the impact of its actions on competitiveness is no substitute for making competitiveness a core objective.

That brings me to the issue of accountability and scrutiny. Our regulators are getting more power and the Government are perfectly open about that. They have stated that they are,

“delegating a very substantial level of policy responsibility to the UK financial services regulators.”

If regulators are being given additional powers, there should surely be a commensurate increase in scrutiny. I therefore argue and agree with others that we need to look carefully at how regulators will be scrutinised by Parliament. Of course, getting the balance right is critical but we do not want Ministers or Parliament micromanaging regulators. There are questions as to whether enough is being done to hold unelected regulators to account.

That brings me back to where I began. The best way for Parliament to make regulators accountable is for elected MPs to set unelected regulators very clear objectives. At the moment, those objectives will not achieve our aim to strengthen our competitiveness. That needs to be addressed.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to all those who have shepherded Brexit legislation through this House since I stood at that Dispatch Box and triggered Article 50. I also congratulate the Government, especially the Prime Minister, my noble friend Lord Frost and the entire negotiating team, on the deal.

I do not want to dive into details on the Bill, but to take a step back and ask some basic, simple questions—the same questions that I asked shortly after I resigned as a Minister. Having taken back control, what do we want to do with our new powers? Do we want to chart our own course and paddle our own canoe and, if so, what is the destination, or is the plan to follow in the EU’s wake?

From those questions, many others follow. Consider financial services, and here I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register. I am delighted that the Chancellor wants to make the UK a global leader in fintech and green finance, but as we do that, should we not think more broadly about how we might update but not weaken our regulations—which after all were created for an analogue age—for the digital green future, even if that might mean divergence from the EU at some point? Are we too fixated on equivalence?

We should ask similar, challenging questions about other parts of the economy. For example, how can we make the UK the best place to innovate in green, sustainable technology? How can we ensure that our employment laws continue to make us globally competitive and are fair for workers in the gig economy? The list of questions is long, and the answers may or may not require us to diverge from the EU in the future, but we must answer them now, starting with those basic ones if we are to prosper in the years ahead, and, more immediately, if we are to make the most of holding the presidency of the G7 and hosting COP 26.

At the moment we have a laundry list of policies—reviewing chemical regulations, banning live animal exports, blue passports, taking back control of our waters and so on—so I look forward to hearing the Minister, with his usual eloquence, putting my mind at ease and giving me the confidence that there is indeed an oven-ready plan and strategy in the post-Brexit world, and that we are not making things up as we go along.