EU Law

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I cannot comment on the specifics of the exact regulation that may or may not be coming. With regard to the trading relationship and making sure we have trade agreements in place, the Government are constantly and doggedly pursuing that to make sure we have a clear trade relationship that is free from barriers that get in the way and impede trade.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, before the previous general election, the Royal Society of Chemistry was calling for a national chemicals agency to overhaul our

“broken chemicals regulation and management system”.

Since Brexit, the EU has stepped ahead in addressing many chemicals that are a threat to public health and environmental health. We are now getting further and further behind almost every day. Are the Government going to follow the recommendation of the Royal Society of Chemistry?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

On the possibility of a chemicals agreement, as we have said, we will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU across a wide range of areas, including this one. But it is too early to discuss scope or specific areas in greater detail.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The example that he just gave us illustrates, down at the level of fine detail, the broader point I want to make about charitable organisations and non-governmental, not-for-profit organisations.

In thinking about making a contribution to this debate, I looked up contributions around the phrase, “I wouldn’t start from here”, to see some quotations. I found lots of rather repetitive jokes—noble Lords can look them up for themselves—so I shall aim not to be repetitive. As I said at Second Reading, the Green Party believes we should start with a wealth tax so that the people with the broadest shoulders make contributions to society in order that we can do what we need to do: invest far more in our austerity-stricken services and infrastructure and tackle the climate emergency and nature crisis. However, we can combine two things here and focus on charities and non-governmental organisations. We are talking about hospices, for goodness’ sake, which these amendments of which I am broadly in favour, deal with.

I want to cross-reference two Early Day Motions in the other place: EDMs 374 and 380, tabled by my honourable friend Ellie Chowns. They look at what a mess the social care sector is in now, with the chronic underfunding and the workforce shortages problems. They also note how much the voluntary sector is already under strain from escalating operating costs and cuts to contract funding.

The elements of these amendments that are worth focusing on are voluntary sector charities and not-for-profit organisations. I have a proposal to put to the Minister; it comes from the charities and NGOs that I have spoken to. They are saying, “Yes, we can imagine a scenario where we could cope with this national insurance rise, but not on 6 April, which is so close, with our budgets all set out and our staffing set in the position it is now”. Would the Government consider, specifically in the case of charities, non-governmental organisations and not-for-profits—particularly those in social care; the Government can draw the lines wherever they like—postponing for a year? This would surely not involve that much money in terms of the Budget, but postponing for a year would give these organisations the chance to reorganise their budgets so that they have a chance to prepare for this situation. That is neither where I would like to end up nor where I would like to start, but it is a constructive suggestion to help these organisations, many of which are in desperate straits.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, it is rather unusual for a Bill that will have such a devastating impact on our country, businesses, charities and so on to have its Committee stage in Grand Committee. Normally, we would have it on the Floor of the House. It is certainly true that past national insurance Bills have been taken in Grand Committee, but it is distressing that the Government have chosen to push this Grand Committee to consider a very controversial Bill that will affect many groups of people. It should be taken on the Floor of the House.

I hope that this is neither a precedent nor a move that drives us in the direction of the House of Commons, which moved towards the timetabling of Bills, and proper scrutiny of important Bills, on the Floor of the House. We are familiar with the consequences of that: us having endless amendments to legislation that has not been properly scrutinised. If this was about saving time, I do not think it is going to work, because the fact that we cannot have votes in this Committee will mean us spending, perhaps unnecessarily, rather a long time on Report. Of course, the whole point of Committee stage is that it enables a bit of to and fro and discussion under the rules that apply in that respect.

I find myself in an unusual position in the Grand Committee, speaking on a highly controversial Bill, devastating in its consequences. The Minister is keen on telling us about black holes and this creates an enormous black hole in the delivery of public services and for businesses up and down the land. The unusual position in which I find myself is being in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. I started to make notes to find something that I thought he had got wrong, but I could not say anything until I looked at the amendment, because the flaw in his erudite and proper analysis of the damage that will be done to GPs, social care, pharmacies, hospices and others is the distinction that he makes between the public and private sectors.

Apparently, if one is doing this in the private sector, it is okay to slap on a great tax that means one has to consider dismissing staff and so on. But if it is in the public sector, that is completely unacceptable. This is particularly egregious, although I think, and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, he makes an exception for the provision of care home services in the private sector. I am not sure if that is right. I shall happily give way to him if he thinks I have got it wrong. In other respects, however, it is all about giving—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, on growth, and indeed on the hospitality industry, it is particularly good to have the practical experience of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. I agree with him that it would be helpful to understand today’s employment decline a little better in the Committee.

According to the ONS, there are 8.4 million people working part-time in the UK, which is approximately one-quarter of the workforce. They work in large and small firms and include many young people, students and carers, as well as disproportionate numbers in hospitality, tourism and retail. I know from my days at Tesco how important part-time workers are to big employers as well as small employers, and, in particular, to 24/7 businesses—retail is a 24/7 business. That includes a lot of employment of elderly people. Also, as was said, part-time workers are not only the lowly paid—I had several part-time directors working for me—and good employers offer proper training to their part-time teams. It is an extremely important part of the economy.

While the rise in the national insurance rate to 15% will no doubt hit part-time workers, it is the huge reduction of the threshold to £5,000 from £9,100 that will have the most detrimental consequences for those who work part-time. It is yet another blow to the sector, alongside the increase in the minimum wage that comes into force in April.

As a result, a company that employs a part-time worker over the age of 21 who works just eight hours a week on the minimum wage—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said it was down from 14 hours a week —will be hit with this jobs tax for the first time, and the hospitality sector will be disproportionately affected. I think Kate Nicholls used the word “eye-watering”. The industry has warned that the measures announced in the Bill will cost it £1 billion overall. My noble friend Lord Ahmad quoted that figure as well. He is right about the adverse consequences of this and the need for consultation on such changes. How can you adjust your business model and be ready if you do not know what is coming?

It is really difficult for these companies. For the first time, they will have to pay tax on the wages of thousands of part-time hospitality workers. UKHospitality has estimated that a company employing a part-time worker doing 15 hours a week will see a 73% increase in its national insurance bill. It goes without saying that business will have to make tough decisions, as employing part-time workers is soon to become much more expensive. The trouble is that part-time work provides a flexible form of employment for so many—I have mentioned students and carers, but parents are also affected. It can be very useful in juggling what families do. These are people who rely on the flexibility of part-time contracts and might not otherwise be able to work at all.

Can the Minister tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of the effect of the changes enabled by the Bill on part-time workers? Perhaps he could also comment on the levels of employment within the hospitality sector and how he sees that panning out. How do the Government intend to support industries that will be most impacted by these changes to national insurance contributions? How can he give them hope and how can we be sure that they continue to play their part in growth? It is difficult and we need to try to find some comfort.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise for speaking after the Tory Front Bench, but I thought the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, was continuing after the voting break.

I will speak briefly in favour of Amendments 58 and 59. In doing that, perhaps I should declare an interest. I was on the board of the Fawcett Society in 2010 when it brought a judicial review against the emergency Budget of that year for its failure to honour its legal duty under the Equality Act to do with gender impact assessment. In that case, although Fawcett lost the overall case on legal grounds, it was said that the gender impact assessment requirements applied to the Budget and should have been carried out on a couple of aspects of that Budget.

With that in mind, I draw attention to the final page of the policy paper of 13 November, which I think we are regarding as an impact assessment. Under the heading “Equalities Impacts”, in this five-page document that my sub-editor’s eye tells me is in 16-point, it states:

“Secondary Class 1 NICs are levied on employers rather than individuals. There are therefore no direct equalities impacts”.


I would like to question the Minister on how it can be claimed that there are no equalities impacts. Some figures have already been raised, but I point out that 74% of part-time workers are female, 57% of involuntary part-time workers are female, 6 million women are working part time and 10 million women are working full time. According to the Resolution Foundation’s analysis of ONS data, 63% of UK workers under the £9,100 threshold are female. We are seeing national insurance charges increasing the cost of employment by nearly £700 a year for someone working 15 hours a week on the minimum wage. An additional 600,000 women workers are being brought within scope of national insurance. As others have said, on the minimum wage you need to work fewer than eight hours a week to stay below the new threshold.

Analysis of this has suggested that women workers are particularly affected by this change. Some of them may want to raise their hours, so this might turn out positive. Some of them may have caring responsibilities that mean that they cannot lift their hours and may then have to leave employment because they are being offered more or nothing. It is also worth pointing out that the Women’s Budget Group has highlighted how the overall impacts of the national insurance changes are likely significantly to increase childcare costs. That is of immediate relevance to working women with direct childcare responsibilities, but, as the Women’s Budget Group pointed out, there are also issues around grandparents, very likely grandmothers, who may find themselves being pushed, and feeling obligated, to leave employment so that they can take up childcare responsibilities. I do not think that that equalities impact can be justified and would appreciate the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will address the amendments and the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Londesborough. These seek to set a reduced rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers at 7.5%. As I have said before, the difficult decisions in the Bill were necessary to repair the public finances, protect working people and invest in Britain’s future. This amendment would reduce the revenue raised from the Bill and therefore prevent the Government achieving those objectives. In policy terms, reducing the rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers would create additional complexity in the tax system and distortions in the labour market.

The Government have taken action to support those on lower pay by increasing the national minimum wage, which I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, describe as a blow. I think that will be interesting to those on lower pay. We have also introduced important protections for workers as part of the plan to make work pay.

Employers will also continue to benefit from employer national insurance reliefs, including for hiring under-21 and under-25 apprentices, where eligible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also spoke about umbrella companies and mini umbrella companies. I will just note that the Government are committed to closing the tax gap and have announced, as part of the closing the tax gap package in the Budget, that we will bring forward measures to tackle non-compliance in the umbrella company market, including mini umbrella company fraud.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, spoke specifically about equalities impacts. I can say that they were fully considered and we are confident that they are set out in the tax information impact note that she referred to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am standing in what would usually be a winding position, but I think Amendments 4 and 5 have been so thoroughly discussed and I am very much in support of most of the comments.

I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, that I think it is very dangerous to always worship at the altar of simplification. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, if it was the precise phrase, you end up with so many hard cases as a consequence of that. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, talked about a specific charity that is delivering warm spaces—and on a day like today, when we have had to bring additional heaters into this Room, boy, something like that comes home. It is now facing additional costs that it could not possibly have planned for, without the time to put any kind of scheme in place that would give it the breathing space to be able to deal with that kind of challenge. I just find it extraordinary.

However, I wanted primarily to speak to Amendment 8, which has been less discussed today. I thank the National Association of Local Councils for a briefing. Like many others, I was very shocked when the Government confirmed that the upper tier of local authorities would qualify for financial support to offset the increased cost of employer NICs, but parish and town councils were to be excluded because they do not receive funding through the local government finance scheme. Parish and town councils raise their funding via precept. Therefore, these councils will undoubtedly have to increase local taxes in order to cover the additional costs. They have nowhere else to go.

I am sure that that was not in Labour’s manifesto and that this is something Labour did not intend, but there really is no other route they can go down other than to increase council tax. Its calculation is that the NICs increase will cost English parish and town councils approximately £10 million each year, requiring an increase of something between 1.5% and 3% to cover the additional cost—that is £10 million each year, and £50 million over the life of a Parliament. It really is a rounding error. I just cannot understand why town and parish councils were excluded from the provision for upper tier councils.

Part of the argument is around fairness, but there is also an argument around democracy. Many people can relate to their town and parish councils, as others have said, in a way that they do not relate to higher tiers. It is at the parish and town level that money goes to projects that are specifically designed around the needs of a local community. They really are very different in the services that they provide. I am concerned, on a broader scale, about the centralisation of local government that we have been seeing: in essence, we are looking at unitary authorities with something like half a million people in them as the decision-making, strategic and implementation element of local government.

I very much fear that the difficulties that parish and town councils will face will turn them much more into agencies of that upper tier, rather than something at the level of local government with the capacity to respond to local needs and to underpin the character and nature of each individual community. The amount of money is so trifling that, in putting these councils on an equal basis with upper tier ones, there must be some other agenda at work here. I do not know what it is; perhaps the Minister could enlighten us.

This amendment is in my name, as are Amendments 4 and 5. I very much hope that the Government are listening because these are issues of significance.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I will be brief; I want specifically to speak in favour of Amendment 8, given that I raised this issue at Second Reading. I should declare my position as vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils.

I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said. I have just one point to add. As the noble Baroness was speaking, I was thinking about a recent visit to Shropshire. A whole lot of town and parish council leaders and councillors were gathered in a room and talking about all the projects that their councils were running. One of the things I thought about were the photos and slides that were being shown, and how much volunteer effort was involved in the projects being displayed. The money is spent by town and parish councils because they are close to, and there in, the community. Often, it is a community effort to install the bug hotel in the allotments or to put up swift boxes around towns—all sorts of things that many people get involved in on a voluntary level. In taking money away from that, the multiplier effect is much greater. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, we are talking about a tiny sum of money in central government terms but something that is hugely consequential in communities up and down the land.

I spoke at some length on charities earlier but there are two specific points that I want to make. I mentioned earlier—the Minister did not respond to me on this—the idea of having a one-year delay for charities so that they have time to work out both the budget and ways to deal with the rise in national insurance; this was something that both the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, raised. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about that point regarding a delay specifically for charities.

I wish to pick up the point from the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, about complexity. An organisation either is or is not a charity. That would be a really simple way to see this, involving low paperwork. Complexity would be easy to introduce; for a small or medium-sized enterprise or something, it might be more complicated. I do not think, I am afraid, that anyone can compete with the Green Party on our views on simplification because we want to roll together income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax. If that were the case, the Green Minister would not be over there: we would be going through this in one day in the House—provided it was still constituted as it is now when we got to that stage.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising those important trade issues. I can assure him that, having just acceded to the CPTPP trading relationship, we are absolutely committed to continuing that relationship and to building trade relationships in that manner. On Taiwan specifically, we consider the Taiwan issue one that should be settled peacefully by people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait through dialogue, not through any unilateral attempts to change the status quo.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, just now, the Minister said that their austerity—referring to the Tory Government’s austerity—has left us worse off. Can the Minister assure me that we will not see further damaging austerity of the kind that has already left us with a terrible level of public health, teetering Civil Service departments that cannot keep up with their responsibilities and local government in crisis? Can he say that we are not going to see more of that from this Government?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I cannot remember what the Green Party’s position is on the national insurance increases that we have put in place. I certainly hope that she is not opposing those increases but supporting the extra investment that we are putting into the National Health Service as a result, because that would not be terribly coherent. We are committed to investing in our public services. The Budget we just had, in October, announced £100 billion more of capital investment. I certainly would not describe that as austerity.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Since the Minister came directly at me, I very much invite him to look at the Green Party manifesto from the recent election. It remains our position to raise money from a range of sources to put vastly more investment into the NHS and many other government programmes, particularly through a wealth tax. I invite the Minister to look at it.

Since I am on my feet, the question that I was originally going to ask relates to the position of Jimmy Lai, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. Does the Minister agree that the situation of British citizen Jimmy Lai reflects the fact that there is no rule of law in China? In encouraging British businesses to further invest and become involved in China, is there not a significant risk to both their capital and staff where there is no rule of law? I am concerned that the Statement speaks with praise of HSBC and Standard Chartered. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the situation where those companies have refused to hand over to Hong Kongers—BNO passport-holders who have come to the UK—their own money in pension funds.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her follow-up question. I am sure that the Green Party manifesto is a cracking read and I will endeavour to read it, if I have time. I note that she did not say that she was in favour of the national insurance increase, so I take it that she is supporting the investment without supporting the means to raise that investment.

The noble Baroness asked specifically about British national Jimmy Lai. His case is a priority for the UK Government. The Chancellor raised this Government’s concerns about the case during her visit to China. The UK has called for the national security law to be repealed and for an end to the prosecution of all individuals charged under it, including Jimmy Lai. We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and immediately release Jimmy Lai.

Long-duration Energy Storage (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, since I am speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and having listened to his contribution, I feel I must defend the BBC’s intention to contextualise his words. I note an article on the LSE’s website, dated October last year, headed “Misinformation in the UK’s House of Lords”, which focuses on statements made in the House by the noble Lord on the climate emergency, and speaks about

“the promotion of misinformation about climate change”.

The BBC is surely taking on board such analysis.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Is the noble Baroness saying that it is right for the BBC to say an untruth because she does not agree with what I say?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I am saying that the BBC is trying to—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Will she condemn the BBC for saying that I have interests in an oil and gas company when I do not, and have not for more than 10 years?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I have no awareness of the details of the noble Lord’s financial position, but I understand the BBC’s intention to try to make sure that it contextualises the information that is being presented to listeners.

I welcome the Minister to the House and to her position, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the committee for an excellent report and the entirely expected comprehensive and detailed introduction to it. It is a reminder that your Lordships’ House needs more people with a science and technology background, particularly those who are able to look at technological claims critically and, where necessary, sceptically.

I begin with paragraph 12 of the report, which talks about the global energy crisis as being an object lesson in our vulnerability to fossil fuel prices. Those who question the net-zero and 2030 electricity decarbonisation targets really need to focus on that paragraph. We need homegrown or regionally linked solutions, as well as sustainable ones. I pick up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, about the evident state of our climate emergency now, and offer my sympathy to the 130,000 people forced to evacuate Los Angeles. I urge those who doubt the need for climate action to look at those images and question why they still have doubts.

The report covers the fact that the Climate Change Committee forecast that electricity demand will increase by 50% by 2035 and double by 2050 in its balanced pathway scenario. I want to go back further than the committee report does: can we afford that increase in electricity demand, economically or environmentally? Can we make other choices about the way our society works? We think of it in terms of bulk demand for electricity, but we can also think about it in terms of balancing the grid from moment to moment. How can we reduce demand and make sure that that is part of our story, as well as saying that we have got to have the storage?

Paragraph 129 of the report says that long and medium-duration storage is critical,

“but it will not always be the cheapest option”.

The committee stresses that energy efficiency, which I want to focus on, is often a cheaper option. The cleanest, greenest energy you can possibly have is the energy that you do not need to use. I fear that sometimes, when we reach out for technological solutions and think about growth as a mantra or religion, we fail to think about the fact that the cheapest, cleanest, best possible energy is the energy that we do not need to use.

In that context, your Lordships frequently hear expressions of excitement from the Government about the possibilities of so-called AI or large language learning models. One study suggests that a generative AI system uses around 33 times more energy than a machine running task-specific software—33 times more energy to get the same outcome. In 2022, the world’s data centres gobbled up 460 terawatt hours of electricity and the International Energy Agency expects this to double in just four years. Data centres could be using 1,000 terawatt hours annually by 2026.

It is interesting that Dublin, for example, has just put a moratorium on the construction of new data centres. Nearly one-fifth of Ireland’s electricity is currently used by data centres, and that figure is expected to grow significantly. Ireland is starting to ask the question: can and—importantly—do we want to do this?

Finally, perhaps we could do with a little bit of light relief. I suspect that a new word for your Lordships’ House, at least used in this context, is so-called AI slop, which is junk, nonsense material being created at enormous scale by AI-generating machines. There has apparently been a huge explosion of images of Jesus made out of shrimps. Do we want to create energy storage so that AI systems can do that?

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I begin by joining other noble Lords in offering the Green group’s tribute to the enormous contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and express our sorrow at her death.

We are debating a measure—the increase in secondary class 1 national insurance contributions—that was announced on 30 October. It feels like quite a long time ago in politics, but the timing is apt—if perhaps not intentionally so on the part of the Government—given that this is what the High Pay Centre calls “fat cat Monday”: the day on which the chief executives of the FTSE 100 companies will have made more money by 11.30 am than their average worker does in a whole year. The median pay for FTSE 100 chief executives is £4.22 million, or 113 times the median full-time worker’s pay of £37,430. After 29 hours, that is an equal amount of pay. If we compare that to last year, CEOs had to work a whole further 90 minutes to get to that figure. It is getting worse; it is heading in the wrong direction in terms of inequality.

The Minister used the term “working people” eight times in his fairly short introduction. What are the Government going to do to rebalance the rewards for working people—from the cleaner to the CEO? If the Government are looking for ideas, I am happy to proffer the Green Party policy that the top-paid person in an organisation should not be paid more than 10 times the lowest-paid person. We could perhaps start by making that a requirement for bidding for government contracts. I am interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that.

This has been a perhaps surprisingly lively debate. To be noted in particular are the wise comments of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, not currently in his place, about parties making promises during election campaigns, particularly promises not to do things as a knee-jerk reaction when they come under rhetorical attack. The country is in an awful state—the state left by the former Government—with eviscerated public services, rampant poverty and inequality, as fat cat Monday illustrates, and terrible public and environmental health.

The country had a hope and expectation that the new Government would come in with a plan and a worked-out vision for what to do. Instead, we have this national insurance employer contribution increase, which is a large plaster—and for many crucial services, such as health and social care, a toxic plaster—on the obviously awful state of the national finances. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the importance of national morale, which is of course suffering from the rampant unfairness and desperation wrought by the two-child benefit cap and the cuts to the pensioner winter fuel payment. The depressing of the mood is coming from many directions.

On a specific point, I declare my position as vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils. At present, as I understand it, parish and town councils are not included in the Government’s public sector compensation scheme. It is now calculated that the cost of compensation for them would be just £10 million a year in England. Conversely, the absence of compensation could risk council tax rises of 1.5% to 3% for parish and town residents. Is that something that the Government are going to pick up?

My honourable friends in the other place were part of a reasoned amendment that this Bill not be given a Second Reading because the Office for Budget Responsibility has found that the increase in NI contributions will lead to stalled real wage growth and higher prices for workers and incur additional costs for the public and third sectors, and noting that the Government did not choose to pursue more progressive forms of taxation, such as full equalisation of capital gains tax with income tax rates and by introducing a wealth tax to raise revenue. The Minister suggested that anyone complaining about this Bill should suggest alternatives. I point him to the wealth tax proposed by the Green Party in last year’s election campaign, which is gathering further support around the country all the time, and to that equalisation of capital gains tax. Fat cats, by definition, have broad shoulders.

I come now to the question of what this Chamber should do. In the other place, Greens joined Liberal Democrats in backing amendments to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of the Bill, but I see no point in repeating that exercise here. I wonder what the Benches to my right would have said a year ago had Labour tried the same tactic that they are apparently planning on what is not quite a money Bill. The Green group will support the regret amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, tonight, while regretting that the Government have got themselves into this mess by making narrow electoral calculations in last year’s election campaign.

We need courage and vision in our politics, and we need to offer hope of addressing poverty and inequality, rampant ill health and environmental damage. As Greens, we know, as we have heard from many sides of the House today, that what are all too often hollow promises of growth do nothing to address the question of who benefits from that growth and what damage is done as a result. The Minister spoke about the increased size of the economy, but the pie cannot keep getting bigger. You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet, and you cannot rely on those now getting crumbs from the fat cats’ table getting a few more crumbs. We have to slice up the pie more fairly.

While the Treasury is used to thinking that it is fiscal levers that it has to pull and fiscal measures that it has to adjust, it will have to come to terms with the reality that the physical limits of our planet and the rapidly changing climate, which is having significant impacts on food security and supply right across our supply chains, as well as the disasters of fire, flood, drought and heat, are not responsive to any economic theories, particularly not outdated and failed economic theories that are deployed again and again to get the same result.

I spent my holidays reading, among others, the ecological anthropologist Alf Hornborg, who notes:

“Among the … obvious shortcomings of the current world order is its inclination to generate abysmal inequalities and ecologically disastrous patterns of consumption and resource use, and yet our mainstream discourse tends to represent these conditions merely as the deplorable but unavoidable side effects of progress”.


Yet the disasters are catching up with us, and this Bill and most actions of the Government are not acting to address the “abysmal inequalities”. Indeed, they risk increasing them, and are going to increase them.

Small Farms and Family Businesses

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for securing this debate. I join the torrent of tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her many decades of service. She taught me a great deal about working in your Lordships’ House when we were debating the now Medicines and Medical Devices Act. I often used her as an example of one of my favourite hashtags, #CampaigningWorks. I note that the existence of the Patient Safety Commissioner is just one of the contributions for which we should pay tribute to the noble Baroness.

On the topic of today’s debate, I am here to demonstrate the breadth of opposition to the Government’s current plans for inheritance tax on farms across the political spectrum. Some noble Lords have already noted this, but we particularly note the huge toll that the announcement and its subsequent concerns have had on the mental health of many farmers. As the Green Party, we strongly support the idea of cracking down on tax dodging where the purchase of land is being used by individuals who are companies to dodge tax and very often to take it out of farming production, but it should not be beyond the wit of the Government to make a distinction between that use of land and genuine farming businesses.

Taking the constituency of my honourable friend Adrian Ramsay, the MP for Waveney Valley, as an example, the typical farm there is about 320 acres and these holdings may be valued at between £3 million and £5 million. That is the value on paper but very often the income is very low. In the Green Party we believe we need more farmers and to create opportunities for the entry of new people into farming, leading to smaller farms and a bigger range of businesses, not even more consolidation which this tax change could well produce. We also need a great deal of support for the diversification of crops and cropping systems, agroecology and the growing of vegetables and fruit.

Given that many issues have been heavily canvassed in this debate, I will take this opportunity to look forward to the spending review. We have to look at the history of what has been done to Defra over the past 15 years or so. From 2009 to 2019, funding for Defra declined 35% in monetary terms and 45% in real terms. That compared to a cut across the whole of government of 20% on average. There was then an injection of funding as an enormous range of new roles came in with Brexit, but we are now again hearing talk—and talk that the Secretary of State is volunteering for this—of at least a 20% cut in Defra. That means big cuts in spending on nature and flood prevention, which has huge potential impacts on farmers as well as rural communities and broader communities in general.

I have limited time, but I want to throw into this debate the point that we need to rethink how we can ensure that farmers who are growing the food that we need have a secure life and business. We cannot keep relying on other people’s soil, water and labour to feed ourselves as we do so much now. We are seeing a very fast-growing campaign for a universal basic income for farmers and that is an area we should be looking at. We need a Defra department that is able to shape the right policies and a Government that acknowledge the importance of food to all of us and food security, which is, I am afraid, not what we are currently getting.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in introducing this Bill the Minister said that

“economic stability is … the rock on which all else must be built”.

I respectfully suggest that that is a reflection of what has been described as “Treasury brain”, a subject that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, and I have previously had some discussions on. I would posit that the rocks on which our society depends are the health, energy, talents and skills of its people; the state of its environment; and the capacity of its infrastructure and services, from the quality of the housing to the facilities of our NHS. I pick up here the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft.

There is also the question: what is the economy for? The economy is there to meet the needs of the people and to care for our environment. We are not all here to work for the economy; I fear that is all too often forgotten. Also too often forgotten is the fact that the economy is a complete subset of our physical and natural world, and the understanding that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. The UK is now using its share of the resources of more than three planets. We have to go back to one-planet living fast and that is the frame in which we always have to think about the economy.

Mainstream economic thinking has a phrase that it is very attached to: “ceteris paribus”. That is the Latin for “all other things being unchanged or constant”. I welcome the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility has been showing increasing awareness of the fact that things are not staying the same in terms of the environment, physical and human, that the economy is operating in. I note that, since 2017 it has been producing the Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report, the last of which was presented to Parliament in July 2023. That report now lists 57 risks, some of which may be described as purely economic, but many of which relate to the state of the physical and human world. The OBR is picking up on some of the risks we are facing.

I particularly draw to the attention of noble Lords in this House who like to question spending towards the country reaching net zero, that the OBR says that there is the risk of a

“delayed transition to net zero raising … fiscal cost”.

I also note that four risks have been added to this latest report:

“persistent and high inflation, rising global trade tensions, global security threats, and cyber-attacks”.

At least the first three of those are very much related to the climate emergency. We are seeing the impact that the climate emergency is having, for example, on food prices—which, I am afraid, is only going to keep getting worse. “Ceteris paribus” certainly does not apply to the state of our world; the old economic verities will not hold, if, indeed, they ever did.

It is also worth noting that the OBR report talks about one of the unchanged continuing risks being

“the risks of financial crises and … non-payment of taxes”.

I note that, in your Lordships’ House, with backing from the now-Government and now-Opposition, we recently passed the Financial Services and Markets Act. That contains a push to grow the financial sector, which the OBR has identified as a significant risk to all of our futures.

Picking up the point on climate spending, the OBR said that if we do not act and invest now, the

“public investments needed to support the decarbonisation of power, buildings, and industry could reach £17 billion a year”

by 2030. As our own independent Climate Change Committee has been making clear, if we invest now, we save ourselves—or if you want to phrase it that way we save “the economy” —very significant costs and risks in future.

Finally, I particularly note the OBR’s reference to the number of people of working age not being in paid employment. The figure in the 2023 report is 2.6 million people of working age not in the labour force for health reasons. That figure reached 2.83 million in April. If we are going to look at our economic future, we have to think about investing in a healthier society. The OBR says that, although there is much talk about people being on NHS waiting lists, it is only a small part of the problem. We have a deeply unhealthy society, and that is something the Treasury and Government need to be thinking about when looking at their spending plans.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise, as I hope increasingly often to rise, to offer some kudos to the Government. We are seeing reflected in this Bill an increased ambition for offshore wind, and we are also seeing ambition for other renewables. That has to be applauded. Renewables are our energy future, together with energy conservation, on which I am afraid we have as yet seen sadly little ambition from the new Ministers. That does not mean that the Green group will not call out government actions when they need to be called out, so I have to note that while we are hearing about this admirable pursuit of renewables and the decarbonisation of our electricity supply, the Government have just given the go-ahead for the expansion of City Airport, which puts the interests of a small wealthy elite over the well-being of local people and the climate. It is a facility that operates planes flying on routes where rail is a very feasible alternative.

I also note that we are holding this debate in a setting where Ofgem has just raised the price cap for energy by 9.5%, just before the onset of winter, which is deeply worrying for people still strongly affected by the continuing cost of living crisis. The Government have said that establishing GB Energy will reduce bills in the future, but that aim will be achieved only if the Government invest in improving the energy efficiency of homes as well.

As a number of noble Lords have already said, this Bill is very closely linked to the creation of GB Energy, so it is unfortunate that we are not able to consider these two issues together. Your Lordships’ House will perhaps particularly understand the desire not to have Christmas tree Bills as we saw so often under the last Government, but we also need a joined-up legislative procedure.

As Greens, we would say that we need to see far more community-owned assets and schemes that genuinely benefit local people, rather than—often large, multinational—private companies seeking to use public funds, channelled through Great British Energy, to continue profiteering while the planet burns, and people’s bills remain too high. The very structure of the Crown Estate, which many noble Lords have already reflected on, is one of extreme centralisation and, as I will come back to later, extreme lack of transparency about its activities. It seems better aligned to work with giant multinational companies rather than a small, local community energy group, which might, want to develop run-of-stream local tidal energy schemes, for example.

I will reflect briefly on another couple of points that have also already been raised. For new offshore wind projects to be delivered, we need significant investment in grid capacity, yet that needs to be done with sensitivity to local environments and communities. Again, if that grid capacity is an issue for the Crown Estate, it seems ill-equipped to make good consultation and liaison with local communities.

I also want to raise an issue that no one has yet raised and which the Minister in his introduction did not raise either. We have seen in other references from the Government the suggestion that this Bill might allow for carbon capture and storage schemes offshore. I have to reflect, as I reflected to the previous Government, that this is an unproven, struggling technology. The claim that these will appear and work in the future must not be allowed to excuse the continued burning of fossil fuels.

I want, in particular, to bounce off the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is not currently in her place—while joining in a number of declarations for my membership of Peers for the Planet—that we need to see in this Bill a much stronger focus and push towards nature recovery, alongside the ability to invest in related technology, infrastructure and research, as part of the Crown Estate’s role. It is worth noting that the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019 led the way on this with a duty to manage its assets to improve environmental well-being.

When we think about wildlife, the parlous state of our land is often the focus, but nature in and on the seas is struggling just as badly, if not even more so. I note that the RSPB last week, for example, highlighted a major decline of herring and other gulls. As elsewhere, nature is in a terrible state. I want to focus, as I do not think anyone yet has, on the issue of sea-grass, which is a potential major carbon store as well as being hugely significant for the life cycle of many marine species. The majority of UK sea-grass beds, an estimated 92%, have been lost or damaged in the past century. Worldwide, 35% have been lost in just the last 40 years.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised a point about the seaweed farms in Cornwall. Industrial monoculture is just as bad in the seas and on our shorelines as it is on our land. The Crown Estate in Scotland, in particular, has been the site of significant fish farming. This is factory farming which has major environmental impacts. It involves taking protein to be fed to carnivores, to produce a tiny fraction of that protein. There are problems with the spread of disease and antimicrobial resistance. How are we going to ensure that the Crown Estate, under this Bill, considers all these issues?

Looking specifically at Cornwall, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised the issue of bottom trawling, which is a huge environmental issue. Just in July this year, the BBC reported that large new—that is newly known to us—beds of maerl, calcified seaweed, have been discovered off the Roseland Peninsula and St Austell Bay. Natural England said these were irreplaceable habitats within sight of the shore. A spokesperson also reflected that it is incredible that we still have such “completely undiscovered” sites. We have to ask what kind of job the Crown Estate is doing to safeguard its assets if we have only just discovered that that is there. We come back to the question in this Bill of investing in research. Perhaps we need to make sure there is investment in research so that we know what is there before we wreck it. That is surely an essential point.

I would appreciate a response from the Minister on another point: how will this Bill, or how will the Government, by guidance or other action to the Crown Estate, ensure that these new activities happening offshore are part of a just transition, assisting offshore workers in particular to move from high-emission sectors to those that contribute to tackling the climate emergency?

The next issue I want to raise has been extensively canvassed, so I will be very brief. I have noted that the loudest “Hear, hears” around your Lordships’ House have been on the issue of the devolution of the Crown Estate for Wales, so that Welsh people are given control over their own resources to be used for local benefit. Those arguments were powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, among others. This issue featured in the Green Party of Wales manifesto in the recent election and is an issue that I am pleased to say we will be supporting as strongly as possible. However, I note that, if that were to happen, as would appear to be the view of your Lordships’ House, it would only highlight the lack of democratic oversight that would remain in England.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, the Crown Estate is a big thing, with enormous amounts of resources under the control of a sort of public, but mostly private, corporation—the control of a handful of individuals appointed by the Crown. Like many others, I can applaud the small steps towards modernisation of an institution that dates back most immediately to the 1961 Act but originally to 1760. Like so many of our constitutional and legal arrangements, this would appear to be the result of historical accidents over centuries—except that, of course, one has to ask: are these accidents? I pick up here the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Somehow, these “accidents” often seem to put in the hands of the few the power to control what should be public resources, while the profits from public resources go to the few rather than to the many.

I finish, and round up those points about democracy and lack thereof, by raising, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, issues—we are on land now—for tenants and leaseholders of the Crown Estate. A report in openDemocracy in July notes that the Crown Estate has earned more than £344,000 in housing benefit since the pandemic. It seems circular, given that the Crown Estate is, as some have said, an arm of the Treasury; it is paying housing benefit essentially to itself.

Over the same period, the Crown Estate delivered eviction notices and warnings to at least 31 tenants. I note that among the properties of the Crown Estate is a three-bedroom flat near Buckingham Palace, which was recently advertised for rent for £19,067 per month. I am not quite sure where the public benefit is here, but we are where we are. Reports in 2019 said that the Crown Estate had received more than 100 complaints about its residential properties in just two years, including grievances about rent hikes, leaks and faulty electrical goods. Here I come to one of my main points. When approached by openDemocracy, a spokesperson for the Crown Estate declined to comment. How much is this a public asset and working for public good?

We need the Crown Estate to be sensitive to the concerns and interests of local communities, across England as well as in Wales. What plans do the Government have, through this Bill or otherwise, to ensure that the Crown Estate—with this lack of accountability, and environmental and social responsibility, and with structures from the 18th century or, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, sometimes going back further into the medieval period—can be made fit for the 21st century?