Mansion House Accord

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions. I am sorry that she started her remarks with the word “disappointing”, because this is a really important initiative by the industry and one that the Government very much welcome. Of course, it builds on the work that the previous Conservative Government did, which the previous Conservative Chancellor began, so I hope that there is cross-party support for these steps. This is very important to our growth mission, by increasing investment in infrastructure, and it supports better outcomes for savers. As the noble Baroness will know, this is an industry-led, voluntary accord. Pension funds are choosing to do this, because evidence shows that high-growth assets can boost returns over time. We are confident that schemes are moving in the right direction, and this accord shows what government and business can achieve together, when working in partnership. The pension schemes Bill will contain more details about how these developments will be monitored to make sure that change is delivered.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we all want to see more investment in the UK’s productive economy, but what protection is to be provided for people with small DC pension pots who cannot risk losses and see their pensions as a savings product, not as an investment, especially if that investment is high-risk and illiquid, as envisaged in the original Mansion House accords?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. This commitment is voluntary and led by the industry, because the industry knows and is choosing to do this—because the evidence shows that higher-growth assets can boost returns to savers over time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, in line with international counterparts, such as in Canada and Australia. Their pension funds and the levels of private asset allocation in those schemes is far higher. Pension savers will benefit from this accord through diversified savings, with potentially higher returns.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a question that arises from this change. First, though, it is over six months since we debated these amendments. That does seem like an awfully long time for the Bill to disappear into limbo and come back, particularly when other Bills are being rushed through this House.

I wanted to ask the Minister to explain more about whether the resolution process could be used for larger banks, but I think he has actually answered that question. I am not sure his answer gives me an awful lot more confidence or comfort, but I am not going to oppose the Commons amendments. However, in the last six months, various comments have come from the PRA or the Bank of England about the fact that this Act, as it will be, may allow them to take some banks out of the MREL process. I wondered if the Minister might wish to comment on that and whether there are any consequences the other way round.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have to say that I appreciate the explanation that we have just had from the Minister, but I and others remain disturbed by the Government’s decision not to accept the amendment, which was not just rational but well crafted, introduced by your Lordships in this House. The underlying Bill was initially presented to the House as providing a mechanism to save significant small banks from failing by recapitalising them from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, rather than having to turn to the taxpayer. Regulated banks, as this House will know, are then required to replenish the FSCS when it is depleted for any reason, but, because the thrust of the language was around small banks—that was the intent, and that was the discussion that is in all the notes—this House very much agreed to it, with just a few probing points engaged with.

Thank goodness that we have a lot of very good brains in this House. The combination of my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lord Fox and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Vere, realised that there was a significant loophole in the language. We did not realise in the beginning that any of this could be applied to the larger banks; that became clear only as those pursuing the legislation became more aware of the implications of its content. Now we have a Bill that permits the regulator to use the FSCS as its mechanism to rescue large banks. Let us be frank: it completely changes the whole profile of both risks and consequences. The amendment would have effectively closed that loophole.

The larger banks, as the Minister has said, already have their own dedicated process to recapitalise in case of failure, a process that was introduced after the 2008 crisis. The Bank of England requires each large bank to hold a tranche of MREL—in plain English, bail-in bonds—which can be converted to capital by the regulator in case of failure, with the consequence that the bank is thereby rescued. We need to understand why that is not considered by the Government to be an adequate system. The Minister has just said—if I understood him—that the regulators will always require that bail-in bonds are used first, and the FSCS is a resource of last resort. But that is not in the legislation. The legislation allows the regulator to turn first to the FSCS and ignore bail-in altogether. He will be very conscious that the Swiss regulator, with the failure of Credit Suisse, completely ignored the bail-in capability and chose other routes to manage the rescue of Credit Suisse.

Those who hold bail-in bonds—the investors who buy them—are extremely well remunerated for carrying the risk associated with a bail-in bond. I am trying to work out why they can now look at this legislation and begin to assume that they will have the benefits of receiving a risk premium for holding those bonds but never actually find that those bonds are forced into use in case of a failure. How can we rely on just a code to continue to determine that bail-in will be the first resort and not a later resort or no resort at all? Are the Government basically saying that there are now many circumstances they have identified in which bail-in is neither usable nor adequate? I refer to the Swiss example. What are the consequences for financial sustainability if we are saying that bail-in is a slightly busted system? Have there been blandishments from the various investors who have purchased bail-in bonds, trying to pressure the Government into creating an alternate route? What are the consequences for our small- and medium-sized banks if the FSCS is depleted by big bank failure?

The Minister says that the regulators will not ask for an unaffordable contribution from the various banks to replenish the FSCS, but it is our mechanism that ensures small depositors’ accounts. Who is going to do the replenishment if the number is too great to ask the banks to commit to it? I am quite troubled by this change in responsibility for where risk lies that is embedded in the Bill. If the Minister is so sure that the items in the code should be giving us reassurance, why have they not been introduced in this Bill as part of the legislation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important Bill, which provides the Bank of England with extra flexibility to manage bank failures, particularly those of smaller banks, in a way that strengthens protections for taxpayers. It reflects proposals by the last Government in the light of experience with the demise of Silicon Valley Bank. As such, it had cross-party support and, starting in the Lords, was a good example of expert scrutiny across the House.

Special thanks go to my noble friend and predecessor Lady Vere, my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Penn, the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Eatwell, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles, officials on all sides—of course, not forgetting the Whips—and, above all, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. I thank him both for the government amendments, notably that which was made to Clause 3 on the involvement of the Treasury Committee and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, and for the timely publication of the draft code of practice, which helped us to overcome some substantial difficulties, as he has already mentioned.

Banking and financial services are very important to the success of the British economy. In 2022, the UK financial system held assets of around £27 trillion and in 2023 the financial insurance services sector contributed £208 billion to the UK economy. Legal regimes which govern how our banking and financial sectors operate need to promote growth and competitiveness and be easy to navigate and use. They must also balance ambition with prudence—an understandable driver of the Bill.

Noble Lords will recall the amendment we successfully added that was championed by my noble friend Lady Vere. This sought to prohibit the use of the funds from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which had reached an end-state MREL. The object was to reflect in law the Government’s stated objective of using the resolution framework in the event of a smaller bank requiring intervention, thus preventing the associated risk of contagion. The truth is that the Banking Act 2009 provides a robust framework for dealing with the large banks that have achieved end-state MREL status. They and the Bank of England should not be taking comfort from the fact that they could fall back on an ex-post levy of the banking sector through the FSCS in times of trouble. Resources should be focused on the SME banking sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reiterated.

In view of this, I am joined by noble Lords across the House in expressing disappointment that Members in the other place voted to remove this amendment from the Bill. We are confident that it would have improved the Bill in meeting its objective and helped to embed the balance I spoke of. However, we must accept that Treasury Ministers, with their battalions of support in the other place, wish to maintain flexibility; for example, as the Minister explained, to deal with a large, unexpected redress claim leaving the taxpayer exposed, although this is very much a backstop arrangement, with a £1.5 billion cap, as the Minister confirmed. So I do not propose to test the opinion of the House again.

It was also disappointing to see the rejection of other prudent proposals put forward by colleagues in the other place in good faith. Regardless, I hope the Government will consider these proposals seriously as we try together to create a system which is balanced and simple and promotes growth—an objective that the Minister and I share.

We support the thrust of the Bill, which continues the work that we did in government to support our banking sector, protect consumers and safeguard the public finances. However, there are still outstanding questions which I hope the Government can address today or in writing. They are even more important now that the Vere amendment has been rejected.

The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority have proposed an FSCS operating budget for 2025-26 of £109 million. This budget covers the FSCS’s administrative expenses and does not represent the total funds available for compensation payouts. Over the three financial years from 2021 to 2024, the FSCS paid just £10 million in compensation relating to deposit claims, due primarily to the defaults of 11 credit unions and one small bank. Will the Minister kindly outline the steps the Government are taking to minimise the operating costs of the FSCS?

The FSCS is a quango, which is overseen by a quango, in conjunction with another quango. The fact that it uses an industry funding model does not change this. The money in its operating budget is money that is not being utilised in the banking sector, which employs millions of people and contributes billions to our economy and to growth. Does the Minister agree that the FSCS should focus on efficiency and on keeping as much money as possible available to banks for their use and not tied up unnecessarily in its operating budget and that, like other regulators, it should have regard to the Government’s overall objective of growth?

I end by saying that this is a broadly sensible proposal designed to safeguard public finances, ensure the security of our financial sector and limit public risk. We will support the Government in their ambition to achieve the objectives of the Bill, but I hope the Minister will seriously consider the points that have been raised today and will take the opportunity to clear up some of the questions that have been asked.

Inheritance Tax: Impact on Rural Businesses

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As she may know, as is standard practice, we will publish a tax information impact note alongside the draft legislation before the relevant Finance Bill. My honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary has engaged extensively with stakeholders in this area, including with the Ulster Farmers’ Union. We have fully listened to the issues that the noble Baroness raises. However, it is worth saying that individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and above that amount there will be 50% relief, meaning that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%. That is considerably more generous than in any other part of the economy.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the problem is not just the damaging inheritance tax changes but delinked payment reductions, as we debated yesterday, sky-high energy bills, a botched trade deal and extreme weather. Defra anticipates that 7% or 8% of farms will not survive, and most people accept that that is on the optimistic end of the scale, and the sale will be to corporates that have no real link with, and put very little into, the local economy. In the analysis that the Minister says is coming, will there be a broader analysis of the state of the rural economy—not just macro-level analysis, and not even regional analysis, but something that genuinely focuses on the rural economy because it needs different solutions?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is worth saying that the Government are investing £5 billion across this year and next year to support the transition to a more sustainable and productive sector, including the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in our history. I do not necessarily accept the characterisation that the noble Baroness seeks to put forward of what is going on and what this Government are doing. As I say, there will be a full impact assessment at the time when the legislation is published, and I am sure it will cover many of the things that the noble Baroness asks about.

Tax: Changes

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No, we are not. The UK’s main rate of capital gains tax is lower than in any other European G7 country, as is our corporation tax rate. Our new residence-based regime is simpler and more attractive to new arrivals than the non-dom regime it replaces—the regime put in place by the party the noble Lord supported for 14 years.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, my eldest granddaughter is a British subject and an American citizen. She lives in the UK and has started to earn some money, only to find that she cannot avail herself of something like an ISA because it would be taxed from day one in the US and vice versa. This is one of anomaly after anomaly and Catch-22 after Catch-22 that the UK Government have refused to address. Does the Minister understand that, with non-dom status gone, this is becoming a major problem and driving out people who are tax resident in more than one country?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely understand the point the noble Baroness is making, but I do not necessarily agree that it is driving out the people she describes. I completely understand her point, but I am not sure I agree with the conclusions she is reaching.

National Debt: It’s Time for Tough Decisions (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Friday 25th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, first I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and the committee on taking on such a significant but challenging issue. I have great respect for the committee. I am one of its more distant alumni, if you like, but my years as a member were not just enjoyable but a brilliant opportunity to learn. I say to those who manage the parliamentary diary that bringing this debate seven months after the publication of the report, with four minutes for some of the most expert Back-Benchers we have, is simply not wise.

We are holding this debate in the age of Trump, when chaotic tariff wars have become a reality and the IMF has seriously downgraded growth forecasts for the UK and across the globe. The committee warned that we need sustainable debt which allows a contingency for unknown unknowns, of which Trump must be pretty much the worst possible, but I hope the committee acknowledges that this takes years to build. It is not within the capacity of a new Government, in less than a year in office, especially when handed a scorched earth by the last Government.

I also dispute the committee’s list of the shocks that have undermined our economy. Yes, it lists the financial crisis, Covid, Russia’s war in Ukraine, extended use of QE, but there is no acknowledgement in the report of Brexit. To ignore Brexit is in effect to get into a car and try to find your way forward while wearing a complete blindfold. A 4% scarring by Brexit, year in and year out, is the difference between a resilient UK and a struggling UK, and we have to recognise that.

I have a final disagreement. I am with those who believe that investment should be treated differently from day-to-day spending when we set debt targets if we are ever to tackle the short-term mindset that keeps undermining our economic future. I see this as essential for the growth agenda and for revival across all the regions of the UK, but I think we all acknowledge that, even without Trump and the reversal of globalisation that now seems under way, the UK faces very difficult economic headwinds. We have collapsed public services. We just listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I think everybody recognises that she speaks the truth. We have inadequate infrastructure and housing right across the country, an ageing population—others have spoken about the demographic challenge we face—but also economic inactivity. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, says, we have inadequate defence spending in a very unstable world. We have low business investment, low productivity, high public debt and high taxes. Climate change, just like AI, is both an opportunity and a risk, depending on whether we drive to be a leader to seize the benefits and turn these into opportunities, or hang back and just bear the cost. I call for us to be a leader; indeed, green industries are currently a key growth area and one of our few areas of real success, which one would not know from listening to this debate.

I find it fascinating that, when I read the reports this week of the appalling figures from the ONS on soaring public debt and declining business activity, when I read the analysis and the follow-up, the focus falls on our failure and loss of exports. This is where I suggest we should concentrate our efforts. I believe that the Government need to move rapidly towards an EU customs union: we have to drive vigorously to revive our whole export profile. It has to be backed by a coherent, ambitious industrial strategy. I know that that is due soon, but it will be critical and it genuinely needs to tackle the full range of issues that are necessary for growth. Frankly, I think we should be taking full advantage of the brain drain from America. Growth was not the topic of this report, but the report says that this is where we should be focusing our conversations now. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, talked about the young people who are our future: I can think of so many levers that would forward small business, scale-ups, new opportunities, and that is where we should be concentrating, rather than getting trapped in this current analysis.

Let me explain in part why. I do not think the report intends it, but it could easily be read as calling for us to focus on creating a new fiscal framework now. It is not the fiscal framework I would have chosen. If we were debating this back in September, when the report was published, I would have been talking about the Lib Dem manifesto at the last general election, which, whether you liked it or hated it, was certainly recognised as being fully costed. It would have been a very different kind of debate with a different focus. Now, I am looking at the world and saying that, at this time of absolute turmoil, when we do not even know that announcements that have been made today will change the growth profile to benefit it, disarm it or disadvantage it even more, when we face such a level of complete chaos, I hope that the Government will not feel that they have to jump forward and make immediate change, because, quite frankly, if the businesses that I talk to hear that there is going to be a dramatic change in the fiscal framework, they will basically be resorting to tranquillisers and therapy. There is a real need now for some measure of calm and stability; it is difficult, but the Government absolutely have to provide it.

The report says that we should not just muddle through, and that would be my normal instinct—do not muddle, seize the occasion and start making new decisions—but, at this point in time, I honestly have to say that muddling through until this chaos settles might actually start to look like success.

Basel 3.1

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Kramer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of delaying the implementation of Basel 3.1 on measures by the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Treasury to address base erosion and profit shifting.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prudential Regulation Authority, in consultation with HM Treasury, decided to delay the implementation of the Basel 3.1 reforms in the UK until 1 January 2027, taking into account competitiveness and growth considerations, given the current uncertainty around the timing of their implementation in the US. The delay to Basel 3.1 has no bearing on the base erosion and profit shifting policy agenda, where the Government are committed to ensuring that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in the UK.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, seven mega US tech companies avoid some £2 billion a year in UK corporation tax by using base erosion and profit shifting. The 2% digital services tax clawed back £800 million of that this year, and it is due to be replaced under Basel 3.1, as agreed by the OECD, G7 and G20, with the undertaxed profits rule, put into UK law in the Finance Act last week. It would claw back significantly more. Can the Government tell us if they are prepared to abandon the DST and mothball the UPR at the behest of the Americans? How can UK companies compete when their US rivals are permitted in the UK to avoid at least two-thirds of the tax that UK companies have to pay?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Chancellor has said clearly, we will continue to make sure that businesses pay their fair share of tax, including businesses in the digital sector. The UK’s digital services tax is a fair and proportionate approach to taxing business activities undertaken in the UK, and it remains the UK’s intention to repeal it once a multinational solution is in place. We will continue to work with the US to understand its concerns and consider how these can be addressed in a way that meets both countries’ objectives. I will not give a running commentary now on those discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, and this Government are absolutely clear: we are on the side of working people.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will come back to the Minister, who has been trying hard to answer these questions without telling us too much. He will be aware that there have been different comments within his own Administration about whether the digital service tax is indeed in the mix in the trade negotiations that are apparently taking place with the States. We understand that there is great hope from the UK Government that there will be a positive outcome of those negotiations within the next two weeks. Is he telling us that the DST and the mothballing of the UPR are not on the table as part of that discussion?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I have said already, we will continue to make sure that businesses pay their fair share of tax, including businesses in the digital sector. We want the best deal for the UK, so I am not going to undermine negotiations by commenting on the talks or on what is or is not up for negotiation. The Prime Minister has been clear that we will only agree to a deal that is in our national interest.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I simply thank the Minister and, again, all who have been involved in the passage of this difficult Bill, especially those who have supported me and my noble friend Lord Altrincham. We have had seven days of debate in the House and nine successful votes, in collaboration with other Benches. That demonstrated the serious concerns about this Bill, right across the House.

There is a strong feeling, echoed externally in our hospices, in hospitality, on the high street and in many other places, that the Bill is not the best way to meet the challenges that the country faces, and that it will endanger the growth we need so badly. However, this is a House of scrutiny, and the other place has taken a different view. As a responsible Opposition, we will not seek to defeat this Bill, no matter how deeply we feel about it. His Majesty’s Government must be able to set their tax policy, and of course we respect that.

I should add that I am grateful to the Minister for his closing words, especially in relation to SEND transport, and for his undertaking to monitor—as I think he said—the impacts and effect of the Bill going forward. We will hold him to that. Moreover, he knows that I and one or two others will continue to encourage the Treasury to learn from all of this and experiment with fuller sectoral assessments in the future.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments that underlie Motions A and B that came from the House of Lords were in the name of my colleague and noble friend Lord Scriven. On his behalf, and on behalf of my Benches, we recognise that we have come to end the of the road on this Bill and we will not press for any further amendments.

I will make a couple of comments. I have just come from a fairly extensive meeting with R3, the insolvency and restructuring professionals’ body. Those around the table were telling me of the cascade of small businesses that are already going into voluntary insolvency because of the increasing costs that they face this April. When the Minister says that he will look at evaluating the Bill and its impacts, I hope he will make sure that his view casts across that territory, because it is obviously fundamental to the agenda for growth. Within those discussions, of course, were many private social care providers. A number of the smaller ones—at least three of the practitioners around the table—were dealing with insolvencies triggered over the last few weeks.

From what the Minister said, I hope that he and his Government will recognise that they now need to use other means to step in and shore up the key sectors that are faced with costs they cannot sustain and are therefore closing services which we absolutely need. I hope very much that his commitment to ongoing evaluation will incorporate all of that and be granular—we were hopeful when we heard his words on SEND transport, because that is quite a granular issue—rather than the overarching kind that we have been dealing with in this House.

However, the Minister has always been gracious. I understand that this has been exceedingly difficult and that the Government face very difficult and strenuous times. We recognise that, at this point, we can take this Bill no farther. We thank everyone who has participated, from all Benches, and all the people in our back offices and Whips’ offices who have provided so much support.

Spring Statement

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Let us start by standing back and considering this Statement—which is really an emergency budget—and the Government’s actions more generally against their stated economic objectives. The main one, emphasised by Ministers many times, is growth. Fine—we all want growth. One would expect, therefore, that the Government’s policies and actions would be consistent with that objective, but they are not. First, the Chancellor and other Ministers talked down the economy, ruining morale. Then she chose to put taxes up by £40 billion, depressing animal spirits further and taking tax in the UK to its highest level in the last 50 years. The most egregious announcements were the wholly unexpected jobs tax of £25 billion—devastating businesses and social enterprises such as hospices—and, out of the blue, the farms tax, which imposes IHT on family businesses and undermines confidence across the country.

The Government also gave large pay rises to their friends in the unions, without any productivity strings. Even today, they are proceeding with the Employment Rights Bill, which will undoubtedly have negative effects on the supply side and hence on growth. Interestingly, the OBR has said—ominously, for the Government—that it has yet to take a view on the Bill’s effect on growth, should it pass. If growth is the main objective, the Government’s economic policies are, quite simply, incoherent.

The Government are also in a mess about the position of the OBR. The OBR is given a status by the Government above anything warranted. UK fiscal policy now appears determined by the need to meet detailed targets derived from the Government’s rules and the OBR’s estimates. Instead, the Government need to take informed common-sense choices that promote growth and, crucially, confidence in our economy, using best estimates as a guide to sensible behaviour.

In short, the Chancellor appears, wrongly, to believe that openly fiddling with the numbers to please the OBR leads to positive economic outcomes. It does not. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, concluded yesterday by saying that

“the Chancellor has all but guaranteed … another six months of damaging speculation and uncertainty over tax policy”.

It does not take an economist to see that these conditions are damaging for growth, business and people across the country. Our economy needs certainty and stability. The Chancellor’s Statement leaves our country vulnerable, and it will be British business and the British taxpayer who pick up the pieces when her plans come into contact with reality.

My first area of questioning is: how would the Treasury react to adverse events—if, for instance, the UK were to become the victim of tariffs, which seems all the more likely this morning? It has no reserve for a rainy day. The OBR’s model suggests that the introduction of tariffs could

“entirely eliminate the headroom against the fiscal mandate”.

Can the Minister say which taxes the Government would hike, or which services he would cut, to keep in line with the Chancellor’s recklessly tight limits?

We are not in a good place, as can be seen from the numbers published yesterday. Public spending is far too high as a share of GDP. It is forecast to rise to 45% in 2025-26 and will still be at 43.9% in 2029-30, according to the OBR. Moreover, debt interest is at an appalling £101.3 billion, rising to £105.9 billion in 2029-30. The prospects for improving the position are modest. The OBR has halved its forecast for growth from 2% to 1% this year, and growth thereafter remains relatively anaemic, despite some welcome policy changes that I will come on to.

As we have discussed on previous occasions, growth and productivity are intimately linked, and we desperately need productivity to grow, especially in the public sector. The measures announced so far will not go very far to improve it. If we want growth, we need a step change in the public sector and a bigger share of the economy in the more productive private sector.

Defence spending was a key element of the Statement, and we on these Benches support an increase in funding for our Armed Forces. However, the Chancellor has not been clear about how and where the money from overseas development aid is going. Can the Minister kindly clear this up?

We support reform of planning and more housebuilding, on which the growth forecasts depend. However, can this be realised quickly? The plan is to invest £2 billion in social and affordable housing in 2026-27, which is, I understand, lower than the average under the previous Government. I welcome the £625 million to train up to 60,000 more construction workers. However, with my experience of the sector, I have doubts as to whether the proposed changes will speed up planning sufficiently or provide the skills needed in the building and planning trades quickly enough to fill current gaps and fire up major expansion.

We also believe that welfare reform is necessary, but it must be done in the right way and the process in the run-up to this Statement was, frankly, shambolic. For a very complicated subject, this is no way to proceed.

Before I sum up, perhaps the Minister can clear up one puzzle. I cannot understand how the OBR can legitimately assume—see the table on page 10 of the Green Book—that employment is going to rise by 400,000 people this year when everything seems to be going in the opposite direction.

The Chancellor’s decision to leave herself with such little headroom means that the Government’s fiscal policy is not about making the right decisions to support our economy in the long run. It is now about fiscal fine-tuning, which leaves us inflexible, vulnerable to external events and liable to future tax rises—which the Chancellor failed to rule out. Since the Budget, our economy has been wallowing in the doldrums of stagflation. Unemployment is up, the gilt rate has remained sky-high, businesses are staring down the barrel of crippling national insurance hikes, and we face the punitive Employment Rights Bill.

When we discuss all these technical terms and percentages, we need to be clear that what the Chancellor announced yesterday will hit taxpayers in this country hard. They will notice the effects of this Statement in their everyday lives. That includes those who are affected by her welfare changes, those who will be made redundant as a result of her national insurance hikes, and those who may find themselves paying more tax come the Budget later this year. It is these factors which affect living standards. We need to build an economy that supports investment, rather than encourages some of our most talented entrepreneurs to move overseas; to see high levels of employment; to allocate money sensibly to efficient public services; and to show flexibility in the light of external events—thus directly improving the lives of people across our wonderful country.

I am afraid that the Statement delivered by the Chancellor yesterday did not meet these standards. We need a Treasury, and a Chancellor, willing to make the decisions needed to support business, promote growth and confidence, and make Britain productive again.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, when I listened to the Chancellor yesterday, the only thought that kept chasing through my head was that this is someone who is completely out of touch with the real experience of people today. The whole Statement glossed over a halving of the growth forecast for this year to 1%, and the reality of benefit cuts. These and ongoing high inflation—an average of 3.2% forecast for this year—are pains that people will experience in their daily lives.

The average loss for an individual on PIP is £4,500 a year. According to the Resolution Foundation, a couple on universal credit, where one is disabled and the other is a full-time carer, could lose £10,300 a year.

We all agree that people need to work if they can, but this is not primarily a back-to-work programme; it is a cutting programme. It does not just hit vulnerable individuals; it hits their communities and will have a knock-on effect particularly in disadvantaged areas of the country. It looks to me as though the cuts are very much front-loaded and back-to-work support is back-loaded. Can the Minister tell me if that is correct?

As a result of the cuts, a quarter of a million people of working age will now fall into poverty, and worse, 50,000 children—I am using the Government’s own numbers. Was this really Labour’s goal? Should this not have been the time to revive the bank levy, raise tax on online gambling, close capital gains loopholes and increase the digital services tax? I will say more on that tax in a moment.

Even at the end of the forecast period, despite all the pain, borrowing is expected to be £3.5 billion higher than forecast in October, and the Chancellor will be faced with very little headroom—only £9.9 billion. Can the Minister tell us how much of that headroom disappeared just last night with Trump’s tariff announcements? The headroom also relies on very uncertain expectations of a major increase in productivity. In other words, uncertainty about tax rises and spending cuts will continue; they were not ended by this Statement. That uncertainty will further undermine any possible growth scenario.

Since the focus of this Statement was supposed to be growth, why was there nothing in it for small businesses, which face a crunch in just a few days as the rise in employer NICs kicks in? It is no wonder that the Federation of Small Businesses reports the lowest levels of confidence post-Covid. When the Chancellor spoke of cutting red tape, she could at the very least have focused on the endless Brexit red tape. If she had announced negotiations on rejoining the customs union and removing the current trade barriers, small businesses would be quickly planning a return to exporting and recovery of their roles in European supply chains.

And there was nothing in the Statement to shore up social care, GPs, dentists, hospices and all the services which are crucial to the NHS and to the return-to-work project, but which are making cuts now as higher employer NICs hit home.

I conclude by pressing the Government on the digital services tax. This exists not as some kind of windfall tax or as a special punishment for tech companies; it is a modest attempt to claw back a portion—some £800 million this year—of aggressive tax avoidance by the mega US tech companies. We have just voted into law with the Finance Act an undertaxed profits rule, which would let us claw back much more of that money lost to tax avoidance by this group, in the range of £2 billion to £3 billion a year. However, the Government are now hinting that the digital services tax will be cancelled and the undertaxed profits rule mothballed if they offend the Americans—I refer the Minister to a Treasury press release on 17 January.

The Chancellor spoke, as she should, of reducing tax avoidance by British people and companies, but why should American firms be exempted? Will the Minister give me an answer? Are the Government going to turn a deliberate blind eye to aggressive tax avoidance by the US mega tech companies in the faint hope of winning favour with President Trump, while at the same time they slash benefits to disabled people, burden social care and small businesses, eviscerate overseas aid and need to increase spending on defence?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their questions and comments. Let me start with economic growth, this Government’s number one mission. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the global context in the Spring Statement, and the Chancellor yesterday quite rightly pointed both to the rapidly evolving global threat and to a global economy which is becoming much more uncertain.

The OECD recently downgraded its forecast for every G7 economy this year, and yesterday, the OBR revised down its growth forecast for 2025 from 2% to 1%. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, blamed this on the decisions taken in the October Budget, which wiped the slate clean and repaired the public finances from the mess that we inherited. They were not easy decisions, but the truth is that they were the right decisions. Imagine if we were now facing this global economic uncertainty with a £22 billion black hole still in the public finances. What confidence would that have given to the Bank of England to cut interest rates? What signal would that have sent to investors about the stability and the resilience of our economy? What flexibility would that have provided for the Government now to increase defence spending in the face of this changing world?

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that we need stability, but she opposes any action to get it. I am afraid that it simply is not credible to say that we should not have repaired our public finances nor rebuilt the foundations of our economy. Are we satisfied with the growth forecast? No, of course, we are not, which is why we are taking the serious action needed to grow our economy in the future and to go further and faster to invest in infrastructure with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—which the party opposite opposes—and a third runway at Heathrow, increasing investment with pensions reform and a new national wealth fund, and dismantling red tape and burdensome regulation in every sector of our economy. This is a serious plan for economic growth with the right long-term decisions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, focused on future growth, but she did not mention the pleasing fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility yesterday considered and scored one of the central planks of our plan for growth, concluding that our planning reforms will permanently increase the level of GDP by 0.2% by 2029 and by 0.4% of GDP within the next 10 years. That is the biggest positive growth impact that the OBR has ever reflected in its forecast for a policy with no fiscal cost. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, did not mention that the Chancellor was able to confirm yesterday that the OBR has upgraded its growth forecast next year and every single year of the forecast thereafter, so that by the end of the forecast, our economy is larger now compared to the OBR’s forecast at the time of the Budget.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, asked about tariffs. As they will know, we are pursuing an economic agreement with the US, and we are discussing what this means for the UK. That is our focus. We will continue to stand up for free and open global trade, because tariffs would damage both our economies. Those conversations continue. I am not going to give a running commentary, but we should see where we get to in the next few weeks.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked me about the digital services tax. The Chancellor said very clearly yesterday that it is up to the UK Government to set tax policy for the UK economy. The digital services tax was intended to be temporary until there was a global agreement as part of pillar 1 and 2 of the OECD agreement, but we believe that companies should pay tax in the countries in which they operate. This is why we introduced the digital services tax in the first place, and our views on that have not changed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about living standards, but she did not mention that living standards will now grow this year at double the rate expected at the time of the Budget and will rise twice as fast in this Parliament compared to the last. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about inflation. Having peaked at over 11% under the previous Government, the OBR forecasts that CPI inflation will average 3.2% this year, falling quickly to 2.1% next year and meeting the inflation target of 2% from 2027 onwards. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about employment. The OBR expects employment to increase by 1.2 million over this forecast period and unemployment to fall to 4.1% by 2029.

Yesterday, the Chancellor also set out the consequences that increased global uncertainty has had on our public finances, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the fiscal rules. I was disappointed to hear her follow the Liz Truss path of criticising the Office for Budget Responsibility. The fiscal rules are the embodiment of this Government’s unwavering commitment to ensuring economic stability, because we saw in the Liz Truss mini-Budget what happens when a Government lose control of the public finances. Mortgage rates soared, for which working people are still paying the price. That is why our fiscal rules are non-negotiable and why we will always deliver economic stability.

The Chancellor yesterday restored in full the headroom against the stability rule, moving to a surplus of £9.9 billion in 2029-30. The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, said that this was insufficient, but it is considerably higher headroom than the £6.5 billion headroom left by the previous Government, and we are of course not now carrying a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We believe that we have got the balance right, and nobody should be in any doubt about how seriously we take the fiscal rules.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the savings from our reforms to welfare. When the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out the Government’s plans, she rightly said that the final costings will be subject to the OBR’s assessment. The OBR has said that it anticipates the package will save £4.8 billion in the welfare budget.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in her assessment ignored the fact that we are investing £1 billion to help people back into work. She also knows that the impact assessment that she referred to does not take into account in any way the consequences of that £1 billion investment; it does not take into account the consequences of anyone getting back into work. She will rightly know that the OBR will do that assessment and come back in the autumn with updated figures.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about our spending plans. She said spending was too high, so I would be fascinated to know now where she intends to cut that spending from. The Spring Statement confirms that day-to-day spending is growing in real terms in every single year of the forecast period—by an average of 1.2% a year, in real terms, from 2025 to 2029. The spending review envelope is fully protected. That means we are spending £50 billion more on day-to-day spending in 2028-29 than the previous Government’s plans. I would be interested to know what, of that £50 billion, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would like to cut.

In the Budget last October, we increased capital investment by £100 billion over the course of the Parliament, including investing in transport, beginning the delivery of 1.5 million homes, supporting new industries and protecting record R&D funding. The OBR has looked at the growth impact across a decade; it is clear that particularly our capital investments—which the party opposite opposed—will lead to a significant 0.4% increase in growth. We are not cutting capital spending, as the party opposite did time and time again, because that choked off growth.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about tax. I know she would not expect me, even if I could, to write the next Budget now. The Government are delivering on the fiscal strategy set out at the Budget last October, and we are going further and faster on growth because our planning reforms show that changes to tax and spend policy are not the only way to strengthen the public finances.

Over the past nine months, this Government have restored stability to our economy, giving the Bank of England the confidence to cut interest rates three times since the general election. We have begun to rebuild our public services with record investment in our NHS, bringing waiting lists down for five months in a row. We have increased the national living wage to give 3 million people a pay rise from next week. The backdrop to this Spring Statement was a world changing before our eyes. The responsible decisions we have taken mean that we can now act quickly and decisively in this more uncertain world to secure Britain’s future and deliver prosperity for working people.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of these amendments and to speak very briefly about hospices—which I know many noble Lords have already done. Our hospices support over 300,000 people, mostly in the community, and this tax will cost the sector hundreds of thousands of pounds. Beds will close and outreach services will be decimated. Where will people go to die? Yes, hospitals offer palliative care, but only four out of 10 hospitals have the services that are necessary seven days a week, despite this having been a national standard in 2004.

The assisted suicide Bill is being debated in the other place. Assisted dying is what hospices do: ensuring that people can die in dignity, are properly cared for and can live as fully as they are capable of right to the end of their life. We only die once. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has said previously: that not exempting hospices from this tax is shockingly cruel. But it is worse than that, because it shows a lack of compassion and an absence of humanity that are truly shocking. It leaves me speechless, and I have nothing more to say.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches do not dispute that the Government were handed a dire fiscal situation; the question is what taxes they choose to raise to remedy it? We feel that they have made the wrong choice in this instance.

With these amendments in lieu—certainly those from my noble friend Lord Scriven and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, from the Cross Benches—we have proposed that, in key areas, power is provided to the Government and to the Treasury to reverse that decision in these narrow circumstances if they discover, as they see this event play out, that the choices they made were not those that they thought they had made. It is very unusual from these Benches for us to be willing to provide what is, in effect, a Henry VIII power to the Government, and that we do so reflects our deep anxiety. This is not political game playing; we are deeply anxious about what will happen with community health, social health, small businesses and the knock-on consequences of all that.

I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because it was her thought in Committee that one way to at least find some common ground would be to pass powers over to the Secretary of State. That is the pattern that we have followed. I hope that the Government will see that they are not forced to act in any way by two of these amendments in lieu; they are being given the opportunity and the possibility, and we hope they will accept them in that spirit.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has proposed an amendment in lieu which would require an impact evaluation. I have to say to the Minister that, when he spoke at the opening of this debate about how few businesses would be impacted by the increase in employer NICs, I began to think that he had not been given the central information that he should have been given. If he were to look, he would discover that that vast number of companies that are not affected are those with three employees or fewer, but that those small companies that we look to for scale-up and to drive growth are impacted.

Again, this underscores the fact that to roll it out effectively—and I fully accept that this is new and has not been the pattern of past Governments—we need to move to a time when we get much more detailed impact evaluation as we deal with these issues in this House. We on these Benches hope very much that the Government will accept the three amendments in lieu. If they do not, then we will support all three.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we have worked together on these three modest, common-sense amendments, and we will also support them if it comes to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have rejected a number of amendments which call for the exemption of various sectors from the jobs tax, citing financial privilege. The amendments would have protected small business, providers of transport for students with special educational needs, small charities, providers of early years education and hospices, which we have already heard a lot about today, because of their desperate situation, from my noble friends Lord Leigh, Lord Ashcombe, Lady Monckton and Lady Noakes.

The Government’s refusal to acknowledge the damaging impacts that this tax on jobs will have is very concerning. The tax is in complete contrast to their insistence that they are the party of growth. Indeed, the most recent GDP statistics from the ONS indicate that the economy shrank by 0.1% in January. The way the Government are now taxing the more productive private sector to pay for a huge increase in less productive public projects and salaries means, I fear, that this trend will continue.

We have recast our review clause into a modest one, which we will be voting on shortly. We will not oppose the government amendments in this second group, but I give notice that we are planning to seek assistance for those providing SEND transport in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, we regret very much that the other place rejected amendments that would have exempted key groups such as universities, nurseries and those providing SEND transport—essential services that provide key support will be under huge financial pressure. We have had to be selective. We have offered the Government opportunities to take powers in the areas where we think the greatest damage will be done most rapidly. Therefore, we will not press the Government on these amendments.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their agreement not to insist on these amendments. We have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. Not acting was simply not an option. As a result, through this decision, and others taken in the Budget, we have created a foundation of stability on which we are now taking forward our agenda of growth and reform.

Finance Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town. We thoroughly enjoyed her very warm speech. She brings an expertise not only in a key industry but in skills development, and boy, do we need that.

The Finance Bill, in so many ways, feels like old news, but it is relevant and many of its features will go into effect in the next few weeks. We on these Benches approached our response to this Bill with an understanding of the difficult fiscal position Labour inherited from the Tories. Consequently, we have not objected to replacement of the non-dom regime—though we think it could have used much better and proper consultation—and we have accepted the increase in capital gains tax and the rise in the energy profits levy. We would have also closed existing loopholes in the capital gains tax regime and backdated the increase in the energy levy, as outlined in our general election manifesto.

However, we absolutely cannot support a tax on education through the introduction of VAT on independent school fees. Our concerns lie particularly with the thousands and thousands of families with SEN children who do not have an education, health and care plan and who have turned to independent schools because they cannot find available state provision. In some cases, this is because the EHCP assessment process is so long, onerous and costly, but it is also because the hurdle for an EHCP is so high that many children fail to get the early help they need to prevent them falling behind unless they switch to the private sector, and now the VAT costs will further penalise those families.

We are also worried about the impact of the increase in alcohol duty, particularly on the whisky and wine industries and the knock-on to the hospitality sector, which already faces so many stresses and new costs—not least the increase in employers’ NICs. I do not understand the Government’s resistance to at least doing an impact evaluation on this sector and all the many ways in which it has been hit post Budget. The hospitality sector and the high street could be so much helped by a proper reform of business rates; we are dismayed by the delay in that process and call for something much more drastic that would make a fundamental difference—a commercial landowner levy.

I pivot to an issue raised primarily by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, on which I would go farther than he did. Clause 19 and Schedule 4 bring into UK law the undertaxed profits rule, pillar 2 of the OECD’s project to counter the use of artificial arrangements by large multinationals to shift profits away from the country where they should rightly be taxed to a jurisdiction where tax is low or non-existent. This is known as base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, and the biggest culprits, as we all know, are the mega US tech companies. This is a crucial piece of international law which, when implemented, would mean that the UK can charge a top-up tax where BEPS is demonstrated. This would replace the UK’s current 2% digital tax, which, as the noble Lord said, raises the pathetic amount of something like £600 million a year, according to the Treasury.

It shocked me—I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, noticed this, because it slipped by most of us—that on 17 January the PRA and the Treasury announced that they would delay beginning the implementation of this undertaxed profits rule until 2027; it had already been postponed once to 2026. This is even though the anticipated tax revenue is more than £2 billion a year; the noble Lord cited the updated figure of £2.8 billion a year. The reason the Government gave was that:

“This allows … time for greater clarity to emerge about plans for its implementation in the United States”.


Even more significantly, the PRA has paused until further notice its firm data collection exercise, which is a vital step in bringing us to a point where we could support the implementation of this rule. In effect, the PRA and the Treasury might just as well have written that they will close their eyes to tax avoidance by the US mega tech companies because they are afraid to annoy President Trump and Elon Musk. Will the Minister explain to me why—at a time when we are looking at cuts in benefits to disabled people, there is pressure on the public sector in every direction and we have to increase defence—we will make a £2.8 billion annual gift to tax avoiders when these other measures are necessary?

The UK’s economic numbers are not in a happy place, as many have noticed. GDP declined in January and the drop in construction is particularly worrying. The Government seem to be tackling the problem with answers that in some ways are too simplistic, and I do not hear them being challenged much on it. Diverting pension money into illiquid, high-risk investments may sound like an excellent strategy, but it is utterly unconvincing until we get safeguarding for small pots. Not a word has been said on that issue.

Updated public/private partnerships can work to bring in private money, particularly for infra- structure investment, but only under limited and highly controlled circumstances. I had to sit and watch from the board of TfL the last Labour Government enter into a completely insane public/private partnership for the London Underground. It was the flagship PPI arrangement, but predictably collapsed at a cost to the taxpayer and the London fare payer of many billions of pounds. At TfL I was told the loss was £11 billion; the latest reports now estimate it at closer to £20 billion. There are limited circumstances in which this engagement can be used; it has to be done with a very open-eyed and carefully crafted set of rules. I beg the Government not to be naive in the way they were a decade ago.

I accept that the international backdrop of live wars and trade wars would be a challenge to any Government, but in these circumstances we need to know who our real friends are and stand with them. On this theme, I urge the Government not to be naive in dealing with the United States. The UK steel industry is the first UK casualty to the Americans, but it will not be the last. Any trade deal on offer by Trump will be one-sided. If it is not, the Americans will simply renege when it suits them, as they have with Canada and Mexico. That should be a salutary lesson. Getting closer to Europe and into the customs union should be plan A, not plan B or C. That strategy alone would seriously strengthen our hand with the Trump Administration.