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.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment for the reasons the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has given. It is, obviously, quite important to bring the Scottish position into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

It also gives me an opportunity to make two points that I ask the Minister to bear in mind. The first is the extent to which the public services in Scotland are dependent on the third sector. They depend to a major extent on the work done by charities and other third sector organisations. There is, of course, an imbalance between the way in which public sectors react to the changes in the Bill and the third sector is left with very little support at the moment to enable it to do that. Perhaps the Minister might bear in mind, as time goes on, that it is necessary to keep an eye on the extent to which the Bill has that deleterious effect.

There are other ways—I know the Minister understands this—in which these bodies can be assisted. It may be, if the position is as people are saying and they will be so disadvantaged, that the Government might be able to support them in some way to enable them to continue to provide their vital support. In the end, the people who suffer are not those who provide the services but those for whom the services are provided, for which the public services in Scotland are not fully equipped.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that I take full responsibility for the misdrafting of the original amendment, and for not being sensitive to the legal differences between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and the others who have supported him, and those in Scotland who were so concerned about what might happen to the care services there that they wanted to make sure that the language was reasonably perfected.

I am delighted to accept that amendment, but I am also very grateful that people came forward. It is good to know that we are sending something to the other place that is not holed beneath the waterline; I appreciate that. I also appreciate the vote that came in this House, which is not disrupted at all by this amendment, as people were very clear that they intended it to apply to Scotland as well as to the rest of the United Kingdom.

I hope that I will be in a position to thank the Government for accepting this tidying-up amendment, understanding the spirit both in which it was offered and in which the previous debate took place.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I want to raise an objection to the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, which accused us of making amendments to spray public funding around. We made a number of suggestions as to how government could raise revenue in other ways, and government does flex itself, as we have seen in the increasing defence expenditure and reduction in overseas aid, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do outside of a Budget.

When the chief executive of a hospice says publicly that, as a result of this legislation, people may die in greater pain and agony than would otherwise be the case, I think it is perfectly reasonable for this to be drawn to your Lordships’ attention and for amendments to be discussed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, it was this Government’s duty in October last year to repair the public finances and rebuild the public services. We did so in the fairest way possible, by keeping our promises to working people not to increase their national insurance, VAT or income tax. The Government did, however, need to take some very difficult decisions, including some of the measures contained in this Bill. As a result of those decisions, we have now wiped the slate clean, creating a platform of stability and enabling us to make significant additional investment in the NHS.

I thank all noble Lords who have given their time and expertise to scrutinise the Bill during its passage through your Lordships’ House. Specifically, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their constructive engagement and scrutiny.

While I acknowledge the commitment of your Lordships’ House to the scrutiny of the Bill, the Government have not found themselves in agreement with the amendments proposed. We believe that the Bill in its original form provides the right way in difficult circumstances of raising the revenue needed to repair the public finances and rebuild public services.

I thank my noble friends Lord Eatwell and Lord Chandos for their supportive contributions and thank my officials who worked hard to bring this Bill before your Lordships’ House, including Joe Oakes, Isabelle Urban, Alex Nevitte, Henry Lodge, Hannah Bewley and Will Smith. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I am sorry to disrupt the House, but it is common to use do now pass to say thank you and I certainly have thank yous to say.

I thank the House for passing a number of amendments that will substantially reduce the damage and harm being done by this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, took the lead on small businesses, the Conservative Benches took the lead on charities and transport for special needs children, and my own party took the lead on community health and social care. Those are all exceedingly important and I hope the Government will take the issues very seriously. I do not think we have ever heard better debates, frankly, than those in this House that talked about real-life experience to convey the significance of the impact of the original Bill.

I thank the Minister. He and his team were unable to give us any concessions but they said no in the nicest of ways. I thank all the other Benches. We worked closely together—Cross Benches, Conservatives and our party—because we all felt in an almost non-political way that it was really necessary to try to come to the rescue of the damage that we could see was going to occur.

There is one amendment that I did not mention and which I think is important because it may survive some of this process and that is from the Conservatives on an impact assessment. That is becoming a recognised vehicle for important assessment of Bills such as this and has historically not been adequate. Perhaps we could now change that for the future.

Lastly, I thank my own Benches. I thank my noble friends Lady Barker and Lord Scriven and the others who led on various areas within this. I also thank Elizabeth Plummer of our Whips’ Office who did so much of the heavy lifting. She will have my eternal thanks. It is so good to have somebody covering one’s back when trying to deal with complex issues. I thank the House in general for taking this issue so seriously and recognising its significance to so many people.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

I too have some thanks to give. I thank all noble Lords from across the House who voted for my exemption amendment on the 45% reduction in Clause 2’s secondary threshold for all organisations employing fewer than 25 staff. I particularly thank my supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer. I was delighted to have the support of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and, indeed, the majority of Cross-Benchers who were able to vote at that late hour.

I also thank the Public Bill Office for helping to draft an amendment that turned out to require five consequential amendments, the staff of the Whips’ Offices, and the Minister for at least listening and for his patient approach. I appreciate that he has a lot on his plate, but I hope that he and the Treasury appreciate that my amendment sits right behind their number one priority, which is to generate sustainable economic growth. That is why I tabled the amendment and I trust it will be given the full consideration and scrutiny it merits.

Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

In summary, these instruments uprate the lower earnings limit, small profits threshold, rate of class 2 and rate of class 3 by September 2024 CPI of 1.7%, and set most of the rates and thresholds for national insurance contributions which they cover at their 2024-25 levels for the 2025-26 tax year. The instruments also make provision for a Treasury grant, extend the veterans’ employer NICs relief and increase the rates of child benefit and guardian’s allowance by September 2024 CPI of 1.7%. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief, for two reasons. One is that I just do not think I could cope if this turned into yet another discussion of employers’ NICs, particularly as we have Third Reading tomorrow. As the Minister said, that is the broad context within which we discuss this. Also, when it comes to the very detailed details of various levels of NICs and thresholds, and making changes based on CPI, I lack the detailed knowledge to be able to add a whole lot to the value of the discussion.

I will make some comments on the National Insurance Fund. This is one of those days when I look around and think, “Where is Lord Davies of Brixton when you need him?”. He often talks to us about the integrity of the fund, and—although I do not want to put words into his mouth—regrets that it does not function in the role for which it was originally designed. I agree. Nominally it is a fund to pay social security benefits but, first, a portion of it—roughly 24% of the amount raised in NICs—is allocated to the NHS by formula. Secondly, if there is any surplus in the fund it can be lent to various departments under the auspices of the Treasury. Thirdly, it can be topped up by a grant from the Treasury if the amount is not sufficient for the payouts it needs to make. Indeed, that has been reinforced or extended in the context of the SI before us today.

Crucially, the level of the National Insurance Fund does not determine the amount that is spent on any form of social security, whether state pensions or other things. I agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the idea that the National Insurance Fund is financially separated from other parts of government is illusory.

I think that a review of the status of the National Insurance Fund will begin in the fiscal year that starts in April 2025. This is the quinquennial review that is required for the fund. Given that UK demographics are such that they will drive up the cost of state pensions and a whole lot of other elder needs, which will take the concept behind the fund almost to breaking point, can the Minister say whether the next review will look again at the fundamentals, accepting that in many ways this has effectively become a variation on taxation, and see whether the system can be simplified and combined? It is unfortunate that people still feel that when they pay their national insurance contribution they are funding their state pension, which is not the reality, even if it sounds like that from some of the language.

Looking at the other content of the two SIs in front of us, it struck me that, although I fully understand child benefit and guardian’s allowance going up at CPI, the number is so tiny. This was brought home to me very much this past year when, for various reasons, I have had various grandchildren living with me. Does whoever designed these benefits have a clue how much a teenage boy can eat? There is a great argument for relooking at the whole benefit system and putting it into a much more realistic context. The Government have said that they will look again at benefits, but I wonder whether they will use that lens as they do so, because it is about time.

We support the extension of the 12-month NICs holiday for veterans, but I hope that our support for veterans will not stop there. With the change in approach we are now taking to defence, recognising that our military personnel need to be supported and treated in a very positive way rolls over into also taking care of our veterans, who form so much of the homeless population, for example. That is one of the reasons why—going back to the employers’ NICs Bill that we have been dealing with, which has its Third Reading tomorrow—we focus so much on things such as part-time, entry-level work and small businesses. It is, in part, to deal with the significant number of veterans who are not finding themselves a route back into a working and functional life once they return to civic society.

We will not oppose either of these SIs. I apologise for not being able to go through the nitty-gritty of many of the dimensions, but perhaps that will at least mean that the Committee can adjourn a little earlier.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for clearly outlining the essence of these two SIs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments. We had substantial discussions about national insurance in this House last week, on the national insurance contributions Bill, during which significant amendments were made. If carried through the whole legislative process, the changes agreed would result in significant changes to declared government policy. But from those political highs, we move to today’s debate, which is at a much more technical level and, as the Minister said, does not impinge directly on the proposed changes in the Bill.

I note in passing that I read with great interest the Government Actuary’s report, the existence of which I confess I was previously unaware. It provides first-rate briefing across the whole complex of social security benefits, and I thank the Government for it. Reflecting on the references to the National Insurance Fund, already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer —and, sadly, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton—I ask the Minister whether the Government have any plans to put matters on a more realistic basis. The fund does not do what it says on the label.

In particular, the projections in the report indicate that the estimated 2025-26 end-year fund balance of £81.6 billion is only 53% of the estimated benefit expenditure of £152.9 billion. This is another factor in the case for reform of the welfare system, which we in the Conservative Party have called for to incentivise work, cut costs and fraud, and raise productivity. This is not least because of the significant long-term demographic changes which, as the last quinquennial review published in 2022 shows, are projected to exhaust the fund before 2085. There is a big challenge ahead.

Finally, on the measures in these two orders, the Minister will be glad to know that we are also broadly content. I welcome especially the rollover of support for Armed Forces veterans entering the civilian workforce, which we introduced in April 2021. The truth is that readjusting to civilian life is a major problem for many, and this measure is an imaginative incentive to employers to give them a chance and take advantage of their skills and experience, as the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks. Incidentally, the arrangement also shows that exemptions from the standard national insurance rules are possible.

London Stock Exchange: Decline in UK Funds

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Stamp taxes on shares raise more than £4 billion a year in revenue. Targeted design features such as the exemption for transfers made on growth markets also support the UK’s competitiveness. This matter is out of scope of the pensions review, but we of course keep all taxes under review.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the London Stock Exchange suffered its biggest exit in a decade in 2024, with 88 companies moving out of the market compared with 18 new listings. The drop in liquidity and trading activity began with the 2008 financial crash but accelerated significantly with Brexit. We all want a rebound, but will the Government take the necessary steps to rebuild liquidity by strengthening our relationship with the EU? A customs union would be a good first step; as one investor said to me, “Outside of the EU, why choose London over New York?”

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and she knows I agree with her analysis of the effects of Brexit. Firms may, of course, choose to list in other countries for a variety of reasons, and the Government appreciate that there is a perception that firms, especially tech firms, will have larger valuations in the US. We are determined to change that perception, which is why the Government are taking forward an ambitious programme of reforms to boost the attractiveness of UK markets and to support firms to start, scale, list and, importantly, stay here. As she knows, through the Government’s work on the EU reset, we will absolutely strengthen our relationship with the European Union.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I think we all agree that the US is an indispensable ally in many areas. As he may have seen, President Trump has said he has had a couple of good, constructive calls with Keir Starmer and the two enjoy a good relationship. The Prime Minister has said that he would like to work with the US to develop a trade deal, and we are keen to work with the Trump Administration to capitalise on opportunities and deepen and strengthen our relationship.

With regard to the specifics around what will happen within the steel sector, there is a lot of hypothesis and noise at the moment, but there are currently no established facts about what that will look like. The Government will make any key decisions in light of those key facts as and when they emerge, and we will not be drawn into a hypothetical conversation.

With regard to a free trade agreement, we have talked about the fact that the US is such a valuable ally, and we would love to be able to deepen those trading relationships. That said, 18% of our trade today already happens with the US. Any free trade agreement set in place would need to best represent UK interests.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, being emollient has never worked with President Trump. Will the Government heed my leader Ed Davey’s calls to work with like-minded allies, including Canada and the EU, to respond to both steel tariffs and potential dumping, including plans for retaliatory tariffs on targeted American exports such as Tesla vehicles? Have Ministers convened a meeting with the leaders of our four UK nations to work together to protect our steel industry? The Canadians have called all their Premiers together. Are the Government working not just with our steel companies but with the unions to protect steel jobs? This country would never start a trade war, but it cannot weakly acquiesce in being the victim of one.

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I agree that the UK steel industry is something that we hugely value and look to support in any way that we are able. To that end, we have a steel strategy being published this spring which will outline how we intend to make the industry as sustainable as possible. A steel council is already in existence, and I can confirm that it includes representatives from the union. The Secretary of State for the Department for Business and Trade is in a regular and open dialogue with the industry, and we will consider all the tools in our toolkit to make sure that we are able to support the industry. I note as well that £2.5 billion of investment has been set aside to support the UK steel industry.

National Insurance Contributions: Hospitality Sector

Baroness Kramer Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Well, it was quite a long question. The noble Earl asked me to break it down specifically, so I am answering him. By the spring Budget, that number had reached £16.3 billion, and by July, it had reached £22 billion.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the changes to the employers’ NICs threshold now mean that someone working part-time for just eight hours will be subject to employers’ NICs—a huge additional cost for the whole hospitality sector, including the pubs, which the Prime Minister says he champions. Will the Government not only reverse this hike but follow the Lib Dem proposal to halve employers’ NICs on part-time workers, saving the hospitality sector and the jobs of so many people who, because of responsibilities, disabilities or other limitations, absolutely rely on part-time work?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Baroness’s question is no. Of course, we recognise that the retail and hospitality sector has struggled in recent years. At the Budget, we introduced a number of policies, including freezing the business rates small business multiplier. Together with the small business rates relief, this will exempt over a third of properties from business rates. On national insurance, as I have said before, there are consequences to responsibility, but there would have been greater consequences to irresponsibility, and it is not clear to me how the noble Baroness would fund her policies.