Credit Card Invoices
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, we discussed last week concerns that the new generation of touch-screen card readers lack essential accessibility features needed by blind and partially sighted people. Looking into this further, it seems that these readers can also come with other issues, whereby if they are not correctly configured, the only description of transactions that appears on statements is the name of the machine manufacturer rather than the retailer you shopped with. Can the Minister see a case for steps to ensure payment devices are correctly configured, so that transactions can be more easily traced?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that those payment machines should be correctly configured. When customers realise that there is a problem, they must raise it with the bank, which will then be able to take further action. It is the case that if there is any suspicion of fraud—whether using a credit card or a debit card—the customer can get their funds back.
HMRC Self-assessment Helpline
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, on Tuesday 19 March, HMRC announced that it would close its self-assessment helpline for half the year. The very next day, following a U-turn by the Chancellor, HMRC announced that this closure would not go ahead. When was any Treasury Minister first informed by HMRC of its decision to close the helpline? Reports of the Chancellor’s U-turn referred to a “pause”—what criteria will be used to decide whether, and when, HMRC will proceed with its planned closure of the helpline?
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I do not have the details of who was told at what stage, but even though HMRC is a non-ministerial department and has a close relationship with the Ministers with oversight of HMRC, operational decisions are taken by HMRC’s management. The decision on the helpline followed two trials last year, the evaluations for which were published, showing that closing access to those helplines for certain people had no adverse effects at all. A commitment has been made that the helplines will remain open over the year ahead, but we are focused on listening to feedback and ensuring that as many people as possible can make the transition to online services, which have a far higher customer satisfaction rate than the phone lines.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Disapplication or Modification of Financial Regulator Rules in Individual Cases) Regulations 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI, which delivers on one of the aims of the smarter regulatory framework, in that it will allow the Prudential Regulation Authority to disapply or modify the rules in the Financial Services and Markets Act in response to changing market conditions or emerging risks, and to facilitate innovation. We supported the principle behind this SI during the passage of the Act last year; as such, I have just a few questions.
First, can the Minister confirm how many times the existing power under Section 138A of FSMA has been used by the regulator in each of the past three years? Is there a forecast for how many times the new procedure is expected to be used in each of the next three years?
Secondly, the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the SI notes that PRA decisions under this new mechanism will be challengeable in the Upper Tribunal, as the Minister noted. Is there any estimate of the potential caseload that may result from this new system? Can she confirm how long the Upper Tribunal is likely to take to determine challenges, and at what cost to applicants?
Thirdly, can the Minister confirm that, in considering an application to flex the rules, the regulator will remain bound by its objectives around financial and market stability? Finally, the impact assessment accompanying the SI talks of familiarisation costs for businesses. Are there any similar resourcing implications for the PRA? Are any additional positions needed at the regulator to deal with potential additional workload?
I am grateful to the Minister in advance for her answers. I take this opportunity to wish her and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, a happy Easter.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I too wish all noble Lords a very happy Easter—there is one more day to go, I believe. I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I have the answers to nearly but not quite all of their questions. I am disappointed in myself, but never mind; we will keep going.
I would like to go back to first principles. This was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, and to a certain extent by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. The PRA is governed by its core objectives, which are set out in law. There are two primary statutory objectives for the PRA: a general objective to promote the safety and soundness of PRA-authorised firms and an insurance objective to contribute to securing an appropriate degree of protection for those who are, or may become, insurance policyholders. Underlying that, FSMA also sets out two secondary statutory objectives for the PRA on effective competition, aligning to international standards and promoting growth in competitiveness. That is our starting point; that is the PRA’s job, per se. In taking a decision to disapply and modify rules, it must do so in that context.
The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, asked how many times Section 138A has been used in the last three years. I do not know, but I will write on that and explain what has happened to date. I will also write about the caseload and what we expect for the timeline in court. I do not anticipate that it will be enormous. With much of this regulatory behaviour, where there are disputes regulators will try to mediate wherever possible.
Turning to why the PRA would decide to disapply or modify rules, it is about getting greater flexibility to allow the system to work more effectively within the statutory objectives set out in FSMA. The provision does not direct a regulator as to how it should decide, because these are independent regulators. When this part of FSMA 2023 was debated, it attracted no debate at all, so I had therefore expected that noble Lords were very much onside with the powers we had given to the PRA, or potentially to the PRA, via this statutory instrument. It will be for the relevant regulator, in this case the PRA, to set out its policy for the disapplication or modification of rules. Noble Lords may have seen that it has already started to do this.
This goes back to the issue of transparency and ensuring that the public, and of course the industry too, are aware of what is going on. A whole series of industry consultations takes place whenever the use of 138BA is anticipated. Not only was the Section 138BA issue subject to consultations in 2020 and 2021, when we were developing and finalising our approach to the smarter regulatory framework, but, more recently, and more specifically, the PRA issued consultations on statements of policy. What happens is that the PRA says, “Okay, this is what we’re going to do. We’re going to put out a statement of policy”—for example, it has done it on Solvency II matching adjustments. The industry will then contribute to that, and it will go on to use whatever rules and regulations it now feels the industry agrees is appropriate.
So far, I think there have been two specific consultations and also a more general consultation by the PRA, basically saying, “Every time we do this, we will put out a statement of policy. Industry, do you think this is the right approach and the right thing to do?” So, I believe there is quite a lot of information being published around this. Obviously, it is not only for the industry to scrutinise that; it will be for others to scrutinise it as well, to ensure that we are not exposing our economy to detriment or, indeed, impacting our financial stability. That all seems fairly appropriate, straightforward and transparent.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about the Solvency II matching adjustment. It is our view, and I believe the view of the PRA, that it would not have been possible under 138A, because one of those two conditions would have had to have been met, and one could potentially say that it has not been. Is it unduly burdensome? I am not sure that it is, because it is more of an adjustment that annuity providers can use to secure more proportionate capital requirements. That is not a burdensome or non-burdensome issue; it is just that there is an opportunity to release capital by taking a sensible regulatory decision around matching.
The same goes for models as well. For example, in certain circumstances it may be the case that an institution’s model is better than the standard model that one tries to apply to the whole industry. If it can reassure the regulator that the model is robust, then, again, those might be the sorts of elements that one can put in to firm-specific changes to regulation. However, I fear that this will be returned to by the PRA over the coming years as we deal with assimilated law.
During the passage of FSMA 2023, we did say that we wanted agile regulators that are able to regulate and to change things according to risk. In this case, that will be by an individual organisation. But, as we go through and look at all the assimilated law that we dealt with under FSMA, some of it will then be able to fall away, because provision is available under 138BA that will be able to fill the regulatory gap that was previously occupied by that specific piece of regulation, but was then switched over to PRA rules and the way that it then chooses to put those into place. Again, this was the approach that was agreed during the passage of FSMA.
Sadly, I do not have anything on the PRA’s resources. I suspect that it has been gearing up for this for quite a long time; as I said, it has already started getting to work on consulting. Obviously, without the powers, it is unable to issue any firm-specific disapplications or modifications, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord if I get anything further on this matter. I have a few things to write on.
Electronic Payment Devices
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. Unfortunately, it goes slightly beyond my briefing today, but I will write.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for their work to improve accessibility in financial services for blind and partially sighted people. As ever more transactions become cashless, every customer must have confidence in the payment systems used. Can the Minister outline what, if any, regulations assist for the manufacturers and providers of touch-screen payment devices? Why does regulation not seem to have kept pace with this move towards touch-screen technology?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Regulations that were introduced at any particular point in time have become out of date very quickly. Underpinning the work we are doing is the Equality Act 2010. The whole point about having an independent regulator in the FCA is that its rules can change quickly. The FCA issues guidance which sets out how financial services organisations need to ensure that people with disabilities, who may be more vulnerable, get the support they need. That is better than regulation: having the FCA as an independent regulator is more agile than having straight government regulation.
Spring Budget 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in this debate on both the Spring Budget and the national insurance contributions Bill, and to listen to and learn from contributions from so many genuinely expert noble Lords. I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, on his excellent maiden speech, bringing his valuable first-hand experience of policy-making to your Lordships’ House. I look forward to his further contributions.
The Budget was delivered against the backdrop of an economy that had fallen into recession. Its context was an economy that is now smaller than when the current Prime Minister took office. It revealed forecasts for an economy that, rather than bouncing back, will do little more than bump along the bottom this year.
In his Budget Statement, the Chancellor set out his own definition of economic success—the yardstick by which he wishes to be judged. He said he wanted
“not just higher GDP, but higher GDP per head”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/24; col. 837.]
How should we judge the Government against this measure? In the past year, GDP per head shrank in every single quarter. In fact, the latest ONS figures show that it has fallen for seven consecutive quarters. In per capita terms, our economy has not grown since the first quarter of 2022. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell observed, that is the longest period of stagnation that Britain has seen since 1955.
This year, GDP per capita is again set to shrink, not grow. As a result, it will be lower at the end of this year than it was at the start of this Parliament. In the Budget, we learned that forecast GDP per capita growth has been revised down in four of the next five years—not perhaps the success the Chancellor was looking for.
Many noble Lords mentioned the comparative performance of the UK economy, including the noble Lords, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Lawlor. Our country has undoubtedly gone through a difficult time these past few years, and the origins of many of the crises we have faced are, of course, global: pandemic, war, and the energy crisis. But other countries have also experienced those shocks. If the UK economy had grown at the OECD average since 2010, it would now be £140 billion bigger than it is today. That is equivalent to £5,000 per household every year and would mean an additional £50 billion in tax revenues to invest in our public services.
Why have we fared so much worse? Because each time a crisis has hit, Britain has found itself acutely exposed due to the choices this Government have made over 14 years: the austerity mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, which choked off investment; then Brexit without a plan; and then the disastrous mini-Budget, which crashed the economy, sending interest rates soaring to a 15-year high, and saw mortgage payments rise by an average of £220 every month.
Yet, having crashed the economy, the Government seem not to have learned the lessons and are now apparently intent on re-running the disastrous Liz Truss experiment. As my noble friends Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lord Davies of Brixton said, at the end of his Budget Statement the Chancellor, reiterated by the Prime Minister as recently as today, announced a £46 billion unfunded plan to abolish national insurance contributions. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have repeatedly refused to explain how this will be funded. Will it be paid for by yet more tax rises for working people? The Chancellor refused to rule out raising income tax to pay for it when asked to do so by the Treasury Select Committee. Will it be paid for by higher borrowing? Or will it be paid for by cutting spending on vital public services—our schools, hospitals and police?
There are also genuine concerns about pensions that need to be addressed. National insurance contributions determine people’s entitlement to the basic state pension, as well as other contributory benefits. If national insurance contributions are scrapped, how will working people know what their future entitlement to the state pension is? If the plan is instead to merge national insurance and income tax, what will this mean for pensioners’ tax bills, including the taxes they pay on their savings?
The Government’s previous reckless and unfunded tax plan crashed the economy, and working people are still paying the price. Taxes are still rising, prices are still going up in the shops and mortgages are still higher. Britain cannot afford to repeat that ill-fated experiment. We support tax cuts for working people, but in order to be sustainable and genuinely make people better off, they must be fully costed and fully funded. This is an irresponsible, unfunded spending commitment without any plan to pay for it, and which risks crashing the economy all over again. And once again, it will be working people who pay the price.
Many noble Lords focused today on the cuts to national insurance contained in the Bill that we are also debating, including the noble Lords, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Horam and Lord Northbrook, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Noakes. We have been consistent over the course of this Parliament in saying that taxes on working people should be lower. Two years ago, when the current Prime Minister tried to increase national insurance, we opposed it. We supported the last cut to national insurance, and we support the measures announced in the Budget, contained in this Bill, to bring it down by a further 2%.
Ministers have previously been rebuked by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority for repeatedly making misleading claims about their record on tax. So let us be clear: these measures come in the context of a rising, not falling, tax burden. The tax burden is now set to rise every single year for the next five years, rising to the highest level in 70 years, making this the biggest tax-raising Parliament since the Second World War.
While the cuts in national insurance are welcome, they are more than eclipsed by the tax increases the Government have previously announced. Tax thresholds are still frozen, increasing taxes by £41.1 billion over the forecast period, creating, as my noble friend Lord Sikka pointed out, 3.7 million new taxpayers by 2028-29. As a result, for every £10 the Government are taking in higher tax, they are giving only £5 back, and by the end of the forecast period, the average family will be £870 worse off. As Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has said:
“This remains a parliament of record tax rises.”
As the Resolution Foundation has said, this will be the first Parliament ever to see living standards fall.
Having spent years defending the indefensible, in the Budget the Government belatedly performed a welcome U-turn and recognised the importance of closing the non-dom tax loophole. We have long made the simple patriotic argument that, if people make Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here too. In the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed that the steady-state revenue raised by the non-dom policy is £3 billion per year. So why did the Government not U-turn sooner? My right honourable friend the shadow Chancellor first called for that loophole to be closed two years ago, meaning that we have missed out on £6 billion in tax revenue—money that could have been invested in our public services.
If further proof were needed that Labour is winning the battle of ideas, it is the further extension of the time-limited windfall tax on the oil and gas producers. Yet, even now, the Government have still left gaping loopholes, meaning that many energy giants will still pay less in tax.
We are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge we may inherit, nor the scale of the task of rebuilding our economy and our country. Labour’s economic plan will be built on the pillars of stability, investment and reform: stability, guided by strong fiscal rules and robust economic institutions; investment, brought about in partnership with business through a new national wealth fund to invest in the industries of the future; reform of our planning system and the skills system—and a genuine living wage.
In contrast, the stark reality of this Budget is clear: taxes rising, living standards falling, growth stalling. The harsh reality the Government must face is that the damage is done. Nothing they can do now will compensate for the fact that people are worse off: working people paying more, pensioners paying more, homeowners paying more.
The questions people ask ahead of the next general election are simple: are they and their families better off after 14 years of this Government? Do our schools, hospitals, police or transport work better than when this Government came to office 14 years ago? Frankly, does anything in our country work better than it did 14 years ago? The answers are always a resounding “No”. Only Labour can provide the change our country so desperately needs.
Alternative Investment Fund Designation Bill [HL]
Lord Livermore ExcerptsFriday 1st March 2024
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Alternative Investment Fund Designation Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Alternative Investment Fund Designation Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to listen to and learn from contributions from many genuinely expert noble Lords. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on securing the Bill and pay tribute to her not only for raising this issue to the prominence it deserves in your Lordships’ House and for the hard work I know she has put in to get her Bill to this stage, but for her tireless campaigning on behalf of consumers, pensioners and investors, not just on this topic but on many others over many years.
In her excellent and persuasive opening speech, the noble Baroness made an extremely compelling case for action. I agree strongly with much of her analysis and many of the objectives of her Bill. I will briefly review some of the key points that underlie the Bill.
First, we have seen in the debate today a clear consensus on the importance of this sector to the UK economy. It makes up over 30% of the FTSE 250 and supports vital economic growth areas, as well as a wide range of environmental and social investments. It is also clearly a sector that we as a country should feel pride in. As the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, UK investment trusts are a long-standing British success story, offering for over 150 years access to ready-made portfolios which the vast majority of investors could neither put together nor manage themselves. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, who has highlighted this issue in your Lordships’ House several times already, today took us on a thorough and concerning tour from her own expert perspective of how we ended up where we are today.
It is clear from what we have heard in this debate that charges disclosure rules, derived from the EU, have been inappropriately applied to UK-listed investment trusts. As a result, those companies have been forced to show misleading information to investors, exaggerating the costs of holding their shares. Despite the Financial Services and Markets Act specifically empowering UK regulators to shape financial regulation in the national interest, this inappropriate application has made UK-listed investment companies appear misleadingly expensive for investors to hold.
This has likely given rise to three key consequences. First, it has contributed to UK investment trusts being starved of capital because waves of selling, lack of buyers and share price weakness have stopped capital raising for vital growth sectors, as UK investment companies suffer an exodus of capital from institutions and wealth managers.
Secondly, funding has materially declined as investors use non-UK-listed investments or riskier individual shares instead. This has exacerbated the UK’s shortage of an important source of growth capital for the very areas that we need the private sector and pension funds to support, since most investment trusts invest in real assets, including vital infrastructure projects such as schools, motorways, affordable housing, police and fire stations, and NHS hospitals. Taking the right action now could bring stability back to the investment trust sector and help to harness the power of UK pensions, ISAs and retail investments in order to better support the British economy.
Thirdly, UK-listed investment trusts have been made to look uniquely unattractive compared with our global competitors. Investors are needlessly switching out of UK markets, depriving consumers of dependable dividend-paying investments and denying them access to ready-made portfolios that could add diversification and improve their long-term returns.
The Financial Services and Markets Act specifically introduced the secondary competitiveness objective in order to speed up the pace at which regulators can act when UK competitiveness is under threat. Yet that does not appear to be happening here. Neither does it appear that the new consumer duty is being upheld, as the current system arguably misinforms consumers by exaggerating the costs involved and preventing them making properly informed decisions about what investments to buy.
Ultimately, the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, calls for the Government to act with urgency. That must be right. There is widespread and cross-party agreement, as reflected in the contributions we have heard in today’s debate, that these rules clearly are not working for UK-listed investment trusts. The ultimate responsibility for remedying that and making progress must lie with the Government.
We have been reminded during today’s debate that, in his most recent Autumn Statement, the Chancellor asked the FCA to take action to remedy the problem of charges disclosure regulations forcing investors to sell UK-listed investment trusts and driving pension funds to buy overseas investment companies instead. Since then, what has changed? It would appear that nothing has changed; in fact, the exodus of capital from the investment companies sector has actually accelerated. Having recognised that the rules guiding charges disclosures for UK-listed investment companies are misleading investors, the much-needed urgent change simply has not materialised. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could set out when she responds to the debate the concrete steps that the Government will now take to remedy this problem. Action is needed; if the Government decide to take the appropriate action, we will support them in that.
I end by once again congratulating the noble Baroness on her Bill. It is a timely piece of legislation exposing a significant problem that has been left unsolved for too long, at considerable cost to both the sector and the wider economy. This Bill unarguably makes the case that urgent action is required. I hope that this debate, as well as the further passage of this Bill, will help to expose these issues and compel the Government and regulators to move further and faster than has so far been the case.
Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veterans Relief) Regulations 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, in the 2022 Autumn Statement, the Chancellor announced that national insurance contribution thresholds that are in line with income tax will be fixed at their 2023-24 levels until 2027-28. As the Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out at the time, the freeze to national insurance thresholds and limits meant that
“all the main personal tax thresholds are now frozen in cash terms across our entire forecast period”
through to 2027-28.
Those freezes to allowances, limits and thresholds provide the context for the debates that we now frequently have about the rising tax burden. As Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, the changes made at the 2023 Autumn Statement
“won’t be enough to prevent this from being the biggest tax-raising parliament in modern times”.
The fact is that, after 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone, the tax burden remains on course to reach its highest-ever level at least since the Second World War. One of the central reasons for that is the freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds through to 2027-28. This fiscal drag means that, on average, personal taxes will go up by £1,200 per household even after the 2% cut to national insurance.
To take one example, the impact of the Government’s freezes to thresholds on low and middle earners is stark. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned, consumer finance expert Martin Lewis recently said that, even with the reduction in national insurance, people on incomes of between £12,500 and £26,000 will be worse off, looking at this year in isolation, as a result of threshold freezes and fiscal drag. Does the Minister agree with Mr Lewis on that point?
The Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations set the annual rates of working tax credit and child tax credit and the weekly rates of child benefit and guardian’s allowance for the coming financial year. Amid a damaging cost of living crisis, we support the increases, as any help for people who are struggling in the face of persistently high energy, food and housing costs is particularly needed. It is welcome that these social security payments are being uprated by the usual amount, September’s inflation figure. Months of uncertainty about the Government’s plans caused enormous anxiety at a time when household budgets were stretched to breaking point.
My noble friend Lady Lister spoke expertly about child poverty, as she always does. We know that 8 million households received their final means-tested cost of living payment this month. That support has been critical for millions across this country, including many children. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could say what assessment the Government have made of the impact that the end of the cost-of-living payment will have on levels of child poverty.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate today. I will try to get through as many questions as possible—there are definitely one or two to which I do not currently have the answer, but I will do my best.
Turning to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I recognise that she has been working in the field of child poverty, child benefit and child benefits more broadly for a long time and brings with her an awful lot of expertise. She focused very much on child benefit. I would say that child benefit is just one of many interventions that the Government can and do make to help families. There is a range of different supports, and she will have seen that at spring Budget 2023, the Chancellor announced that the Government will extend the free hours offer so that eligible working parents in England will be able to access 30 hours of free childcare per week for 38 weeks per year from when their child is nine months old to when they start school.
So it is not only about cash payments which come in the form of child benefit; and it is also the case that, looking at where we are now compared with where we were back in 2010, for example, we have made progress on poverty. The Government feel that the best way to get people—and children in particular—out of poverty is by living in homes where people are able to work. We know that there are now just under 1 million vacancies, and our approach is very much to try to get people into work, particularly full-time work, to reduce the risk of poverty. That is why our intervention in childcare is so important. We know that in 2021-22, children living in workless households were five times more likely to be in absolute poverty after housing costs than those where all adults worked. The latest available data shows that in 2021-22, there was only a 5% chance of children being in absolute poverty after housing costs where both parents worked full time, compared with 52% where one or more parents in the couple was in part-time work only. That is why our focus on all sorts of different interventions to support the family is really important.
The latest statistics show that, in 2021-22, there were 1.7 million fewer people in absolute poverty after housing costs compared with 2009-10, including 400,000 fewer children. We are heading in the right direction but, of course, we must continue to do further work in this area. I welcome the work that the Government have done on universal credit: it is a very good set of reforms that endeavours to support people when they need it most to help them back to work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned the high-income child benefit charge. I am pleased that she agrees about the principle of individual taxation—I know that many people would like to put it on household income, but that would mean a change of thinking at the Treasury about how one taxes individuals. The adjusted net income threshold of £50,000 ensures that the Government support the vast majority of child benefit claimants. I will write to the noble Baroness if I have information about how many lower-rate taxpayers have been pulled into that area—but we are talking about a threshold of £50,000, which is a fair amount of money.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked a number of questions, some of which I caught but some of which my brain did not quite catch. I will write to him, but, on the Treasury grant, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government are just being prudent by including it in the statutory instrument. At this moment, the Government Actuary report forecasts that the balance of the NIF will be £80.9 billion at the end of 2024-25, which is a significant surplus.
The GAD also projects that the NIF will be in overall surplus until at least 2028, but the balance can fluctuate because it will depend on economic factors and policy changes—for example, what might happen with increases to the state pension. The Government have increased the state pension by 8.5%, in line with inflation and the highest element of the triple lock. So I will write to the noble Lord on the threshold at which the Treasury would intervene—but we are not expecting to at this moment in time. We monitor the balance of the NIF very closely and we stand ready to include a top-up grant, should we feel that the forecast for that particular year gives the impression that it might be needed.
The noble Lord talked about veterans. The Government obviously keep all taxes and reliefs under review. We have decided to extend this for another year, and the cost of that extension is approximately £5 million for the next year. But it is also fair to say that the Government regularly conduct research and evaluation as part of their role in keeping policies such as this relief under review. When an evaluation is complete, it will be published in due course and decisions can then be taken at that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, mentioned the current economic climate, without mentioning the unprecedented economic shocks that the UK economy has had to weather. Of course, the response to this was often deemed to be insufficient by the party opposite, so I am not entirely sure where we would be had it been in power. I suspect that we might be in an even more sorry economic state, because we are now turning a corner. We are absolutely seeing really positive change in our economy, and I believe that will continue.
It is worth looking at the broader impact of the freezing of the NICs threshold, alongside income tax. Quite frankly, when many people get their payslips, they just look at how much money they gave the Government. They do not necessarily focus on whether it is NICs or tax; it is just money they do not have and cannot spend because the Government are spending it for them.
But, since 2010, the Government have improved the lot of lower-earning people. We have nearly doubled the personal allowance since 2010, and it is 30% higher in real terms. That ensures that some of the lowest earners do not pay income tax. Indeed, around 30% of people do not pay income tax at all. This has also meant that it is estimated that over 3 million people will be taken out of tax by 2023-24, compared with the threshold rising in line with inflation from 2010-11. So the Government have increased the thresholds by more than inflation over a very long period of time, which has really benefited the lowest earners.
Given these unprecedented economic shocks, the Government have had to take difficult decisions, which I believe are bearing fruit. I hope that other noble Lords can recognise that. It remains the case that a UK employee can earn more money before paying income tax and social security contributions than an employee in any other G7 country. Let us not fall into the trap of thinking that we are massively overtaxed in this country.
As I say, we see the economy turning a corner and inflation falling. We hope that we can return some money to taxpayers, because I agree that it is not a comfortable feeling knowing that, in the past, we have had to raise taxes to help the nation get through the unprecedented economic shocks that we have weathered. However, now that we are in slightly sunnier uplands, I hope we will be able to do more in future. I will write with further responses to questions which I have not covered but, for the meantime, I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Bank of England Levy (Amount of Levy Payable) Regulations 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, it is obviously unacceptable that the Bank of England should be making a loss on its supervisory activities regarding the banking sector. We are happy to support this SI’s correction of that situation.
Before we allow the Bank to charge companies more, should we not ask ourselves whether there are any efficiencies that could or should be made in the Bank’s supervisory routines and systems? Could the Minister say whether the Bank has asked itself that question? If it has, perhaps the Minister could tell us what the answer was and how it was arrived at. If it has not asked the question, why not?
We note that the consultation on the levy produced only one relevant response—from, we assume, UK Finance. This response made five points; the Bank addressed four. The first was the rate of selldown of the Bank’s gilt portfolio. The concern appeared to be that this selldown would significantly increase the Bank’s costs and therefore the levy required. The Bank seemed to think that this was not an issue, but its explanation seemed very complex. May I ask the Minister for a “beginner’s guide” explanation? Is the industry right to worry about the levy increases potentially arising from a gilts selldown and, if not, why not?
The second point raised in the consultation response seemed the most important. The respondent suggested that the non-bank financial institutions, NBFIs, could in future be added as eligible levy-paying institutions in Schedule 2ZA to the Bank of England Act 1998. These NBFIs certainly seem large enough to be added. At the Managed Funds Association Global Summit in Paris in May last year, it was estimated that NBFIs now represent about 50% of global financial assets.
Addressing this point, the Bank simply says that the formal review referred to in paragraph 14.1 of the EM
“is expected to include assessment of which institutions are regarded as eligible to pay the Levy”.
I note the words “is expected to”. I also note that this review is five years away. Is not the growing size of the NBFI sector a reason for the Bank’s supervisory oversight to be much more extensive? Is it not simply unfair that NBFIs should get a free supervisory ride?
The third issue raised in the consultation and addressed by the Bank was the desirability, for planning purposes, of a five-year budget plan to help institutions plan their own budgets. The Bank has agreed to consider what is a perfectly reasonable request, but can the Minister say when it will have a substantive response to that comment from the consultation?
The fourth issue concerned the reference period; the Minister has mentioned this. The Bank concluded that the proposed reference period—the same period used for the PRA levy—is the appropriate one. Speaking of the PRA, can the Minister explain to us how the Bank of England levy and the PRA levy work together, as well as how double-charging is avoided?
Finally, why does this SI contain no coming-into-force date or commencement provisions?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, we fully support the replacement of the current cash ratio deposit and the proposed mechanics of the levy. We therefore support this statutory instrument.
I have only one question, related to the timing of this measure. As I am sure the Minister would agree, providing the banking sector with certainty is essential to securing the confidence needed to incentivise investment in the real economy. Can she therefore provide clarity on when this SI will come into force?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for sharing their thoughts on this SI. It is a simple switchover from one scheme to another, but I recognise that there are points that deserve a bit more insight. I hope that, by the end of my closing speech, I will have an answer to the question about the coming-into-force and commencement date, including why that has not happened.
I turn to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. He made good points about the amount of money that will be spent on these policy functions. I asked the same question. It is clear to me that the Bank of England is independent and sets its own budget but does so in a prudent way. Each year, as I said in my opening remarks, the Bank determines the scope of the policy functions that should be funded and, therefore, what the total levy will be. However, the Bank’s policy costs to be recovered through the levy will require approval by the Bank’s Court of Directors, which is a bit like its board, I suppose, and which is responsible for the efficient use of funds—not only those raised by the levy but across the whole of the Bank’s budget.
The levy will also feature as part of already established arrangements for regular discussions between the Bank and the Treasury covering the Bank’s financial position. The Bank continues to be accountable to Parliament in respect of its finances and budget in various ways, including but not limited to through its annual report and accounts—some significant detail about this will be set out its report and accounts—and through regular public appearances by governors and members of the court before the Treasury Select Committee.
I will now embark on a guide to the cost of transition; let us see how we do. When the Bank moves from the CRD scheme to the levy, institutions will get their deposits back as there is no longer a legal basis for the Bank to hold deposits. Through this, a total of £13 billion in cash ratio deposits will be returned to firms. They will be returned as remunerated reserves as the Bank intends to hold on to the gilt portfolio that it has purchased under the scheme and allow this to roll off naturally. This is the most appropriate course of action; I suspect that that also means it is the cheapest. It means that, during a transition period, the Bank will need to pay a bank rate on the remunerated reserves. This is a policy cost that will be covered by the levy. The cost of the transition between the CRD scheme and the levy per year will depend on the rate at which the legacy CRD gilts mature or are sold. This is because the income available from the legacy CRD gilt portfolio will reduce the amount being recouped by the Bank under the levy.
UK Economy
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, the UK’s growth forecast was recently downgraded for every single year for the next three years. Debt is set to surpass £3 trillion for the first time ever. We are seeing the biggest ever fall in living standards and the tax burden is set to reach its highest ever level. Now, the ONS has confirmed that Britain has fallen into recession, with GDP per capita falling in every single quarter of the past year. Yet the Chancellor says, “Our plan is working”. Was it part of the Government’s plan, having spent 14 years in the economic slow lane, to now put our economy into reverse?
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
I absolutely believe that our plan is working. It is critical that we continue along the path that we have set out. One of the biggest challenges we have faced in this country over recent months is high inflation. That is the biggest barrier to growth and that is why halving it is still our top priority. Thanks to decisive action, supported by the Government, inflation has fallen. If one looks at what happens when inflation falls, one sees that interest rates can also fall, which will also mean that growth will begin to rise. The noble Lord mentioned growth. It is the case that the Government have very clear policies for growth. Noble Lords will discuss them with me shortly, as we debate the Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
Lord Livermore ExcerptsWednesday 21st February 2024
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2024 View all Finance Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 5 February 2024 - (5 Feb 2024)
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, the Finance Bill that we are debating today was published following the Chancellor’s Statement in November last year, in which he claimed to be delivering an “Autumn Statement for growth”. It was the 11th such growth plan that we have seen from this Government over the past 14 years, and, over that time, the UK’s growth record has been poor.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, mentioned comparative growth rates. We have languished in the bottom third of OECD countries, with 27 OECD economies growing faster than us since 2010. Looking ahead, over the next two years, no fewer than 177 countries are forecast by the IMF to grow faster than the UK. Against this backdrop, in the so-called Autumn Statement for growth, the Office for Budget Responsibility actually downgraded its forecast for growth in each of the next three years—it was revised down this year, next year and the year after that. Growth this year is forecast to be just 0.7%, which is more than halved from the 1.8% predicted in the Budget, with the economy forecast to be £40 billion smaller by 2027 than the Chancellor expected back then. Now, the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that Britain has fallen into recession. We know too, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, observed, that GDP per capita fell in every single quarter of the past year.
Britain is trapped in a spiral of economic decline. Having spent 14 years in the economic slow lane, the Government have now put our economy into reverse—the latest chapter in a 14-year story of failure and economic stagnation. First, we had austerity, which choked off investment, and then years of political instability, which in turn fuelled economic instability; then Brexit without a plan; then the disastrous mini-Budget, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, observed, crashed the economy, sending mortgages and interest rates soaring. We have had five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors, and 11 plans for growth, each yielding less than the last.
If the UK economy had grown at the average rate of the OECD over the past decade, it would now be £140 billion larger, equivalent to £5,000 per household every year. This would mean an additional £50 billion in tax revenues to invest in our public services. Instead, with growth so weak, taxes have risen remorselessly, with less and less to show for it. While our public services crumble, we have seen 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone. The tax burden now rises every single year for the next five years, rising to its highest ever level and making this the biggest tax-raising Parliament ever, with an average tax rise of £1,200 per household.
However, there is one small group of people who will continue to be protected from this Government’s tax rises on much of their income. Missing from this Finance Bill, once again, is any action to tackle non-dom tax status: those people who live in Britain but do not pay UK taxes on their income from overseas. Closing this loophole and replacing this archaic status with a residence scheme like other countries have could raise crucial funding to bring NHS waiting lists down. Labour believes that those who make Britain their home should pay their taxes here. That patriotic point should be uncontroversial; yet, while families across the UK face higher taxes year on year, the Government continue to enable those who keep their money overseas to avoid paying their fair share of tax. So, while we have yet another Finance Bill that leaves this loophole open, families across the UK face a tax burden that is climbing to a post-war high.
The chair of the UK Statistics Authority rebuked Government Ministers this week for making misleading claims about their record on tax. Let us be clear: while the cut in national insurance announced in the Autumn Statement was welcome, it was more than eclipsed by increases in taxes that the Government had previously announced. For example, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton mentioned, the freezing of national insurance and income tax thresholds for six years is now expected to cost taxpayers £45 billion. This fiscal drag means that nearly 4 million more people will pay income tax and 3 million more people will pay the higher rate. To quote Paul Johnson from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, the cut in national insurance rates
“pales into … insignificance alongside the … increase in personal taxes created by the six year freeze in allowances and thresholds”.
The IFS has calculated that, extraordinarily, almost every single person in the UK who is liable for income tax or national insurance will now be paying higher taxes overall. As a result, the tax burden will now reach 37.7% of GDP by the end of the forecast period, an increase equivalent to an astonishing £4,300 additional tax for every household in the country.
We have an economy in recession, the tax burden rising to its highest ever level and the biggest fall in living standards since records began. We must break this spiral of economic decline. Increasing growth is clearly the biggest economic challenge that our country faces. In government, Labour’s defining economic mission will be to restore growth to Britain, with good jobs and productivity growth in every part of our country. Our plan to deliver that mission, supported by British business and developed in partnership with British business, is built on three pillars: stability, investment and reform.
Stability will be brought about by strong, robust and respected economic institutions. Rather than criticising the Bank of England, as a number of prominent Conservative politicians have, we will protect its independence, and we will strengthen the Office for Budget Responsibility. We will introduce a new fiscal lock and tough new fiscal rules. Iron discipline will ensure that every policy we announce, and every line in our manifesto, is fully costed and fully funded. With a Labour Government, never again will a Prime Minister or Chancellor be allowed to repeat the mistakes of the Liz Truss Budget. Never again can we allow a repeat of the devastation that that Budget brought to family finances or allow a plan to be pushed through that is uncosted, unscrutinised and wholly detached from economic reality.
We prize stability and predictability for business, as we know how highly businesses that are considering investing in the UK prize stability, predictability and a long-term plan. This Finance Bill contains a number of measures that we have been calling for for some time. We welcome the Government finally making full expensing permanent after so many years of chopping and changing capital allowances; we have made it clear we will maintain this policy if we are in government. We have also made it clear that we will maintain the system of R&D tax credits introduced by this Finance Bill—again, after so many years of this Government chopping and changing the design of the scheme.
Of course, there is still a general election to face, so I use this opportunity to invite the Minister to put on the record whether the Government will follow our lead. Will she confirm that, should they win the general election, they will maintain permanent full expensing? I am sure that many businesses would welcome the certainty that comes from knowing that both main parties are going into the election fully committed to keeping this policy in place.
Let me be clear about another area where we will provide certainty, should we win the next general election. As the shadow Chancellor has set out, we believe that the current corporation tax rate strikes the right balance between what our public finances need and maintaining our competitiveness in the global economy. That is why we are pledging to cap the headline rate of corporation tax at its current rate for the whole of the next Parliament. We would take action if tax changes in other advanced economies threatened to undermine UK competitiveness. That choice provides predictability and has a clear rationale; that is the pro-business and pro-growth choice. So, again, to offer businesses as much certainty as possible, I ask the Minister whether the Government will follow our lead and also pledge, today, to cap corporation tax at its current rate for the next Parliament?
Our commitment to stability will be matched by a commitment to investment, through partnership with the private sector, to power the industries of the future with a modern industrial strategy; a new national wealth fund to invest alongside business, in our automotive sector, in our ports, and in the future of our steel industry; and a new national champion in homegrown power, leading the way on floating offshore wind, tidal and nuclear power, to ignite growth, boost our economic security, drive down energy bills, and create good, well-paid jobs across Britain. This will be combined with our commitment to reform, starting with our planning system, taking on vested interests to get Britain building again. Stability, investment, reform—the foundations of a plan to break free from the vicious cycle over 14 years of stagnant growth, rising taxes, and falling living standards.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Can the noble Lord clarify a point that he made in response to a point that I made about non-dom taxation? I understand that the Labour Party originally thought that taxing non-doms in the way that he described would raise £3 billion—it then reduced it to £2 billion and I think that it now thinks that it is £1 billion. It would be very helpful to have precision and clarity on the estimate that this will raise. Will he also confirm, now that Labour Party officials are talking to the Treasury, that they have asked the Treasury for its figures on the Labour Party’s proposals on non-doms, which, as I understand it, show a net loss to HMRC in respect of those proposals?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think that I am at liberty to divulge the exact nature of those discussions, but I can certainly say that that is not correct.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Does the noble Lord have an answer to my question on the specific amount that the non-dom tax proposals will raise?