National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief as the leader of the winding speeches. I just join the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, in saying to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Macpherson, that Parliament has given us the responsibility under the national insurance contributions legislation, to come forward with amendments and press them. I am not going to walk away from that responsibility simply because it looks rather difficult.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who talks about simplification, that it is very easy to have a high-level issue such as that, but I am not going to put simplification ahead of what will basically be the cancellation of something like 2 million GP appointments because of the additional costs on GPs. I am not going to sit by and watch dental practices cut back their services, so that we have much more of this DIY dental care that people are carrying out. I am shocked by the rise in dental sepsis alone. I am not going to sit here while pharmacies basically cut their hours and services. I am not going to sit here while adult social care—we have heard about so many cases—basically has to work out how it sets aside the most vulnerable in our society, because that is the implication.

We have heard also from hospices. People are being told now that their jobs are at risk. This is not a hypothetical or some exaggerated claim; this is a process that is under way across the community healthcare and social care sectors to absolutely cut back in response to this increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. We are trying to stop a disaster. When they came forward with their proposals, the Government did not absorb the fact the National Health Service does not work in isolation. It is part of a much more holistic, complex landscape, and if you undermine the private elements of both social care and community healthcare, you undermine the NHS, and that surely is not what the Government want to be doing under these circumstances.

I could go on because there is so much to be said, but it has been brilliantly said by so many across this House. If the Government were to stand up and say that they accepted this amendment, I think there would be a hallelujah, quite frankly. Will they please understand the problems we are trying to deal with? This is not hypothetical or playing party-political games; this is dealing with a really difficult and serious problem that our society is facing. I do not know quite what I can do in a winding speech, but if I can move anything, I will.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I echo much of what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, what my noble friend Lord Ahmad said about it being a pity that the Minister had not engaged more with all those affected, and the plea for fairness from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. This Bill is the most important economic measure the Government have put forward since they took office and, as has become apparent from our debates, especially the detailed examination in Committee, it is a misguided measure with numerous defects. It will hit hardest those sectors that employ more labour, such as care homes and hospices, but there will also be flow-through to SMEs and bigger businesses as they seek to cut costs and staff. We have seen this in action with big names such as Sainsbury’s shedding staff and the Federation of Small Businesses and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development recording collapsing confidence and planned headcount cuts in the surveys.

During our debate today, the Opposition are proposing amendments to reduce some of the Bill’s most egregious effects. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. We have to find a way to limit the impact of this ill-thought-out jobs tax. The tax system is not simple and we are where we are because of the choices the Government have made. The changes are having real impacts on real people in their everyday lives: on charities, small businesses, nursery schools, special needs drivers, pubs, young people and—the specific subject of this amendment—care homes, pharmacies, dentists, GP surgeries and hospices. That is why we are supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and will be voting in favour.

At every stage throughout the progress of this Bill, we have raised the plight of these sectors because of the decisions the Government made in the Budget. They are facing these changes in a very short timescale, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has rightly said. At every stage, the Government have remained unmoved. The Minister has been stony-faced and utterly unreceptive to the genuine and deeply felt concerns of millions of businesses and charity trustees across the country.

We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hope, about the Cyrenians, from my noble friend Lady Stedman- Scott about the sheer scale of the impact on charities, and from my noble friend Lady Fraser about the loss of jobs and skills and the difficulties of deciding what to do. These organisations and others are facing a financial cliff edge in April and that is thanks to the Government, who have chosen to put them in this position while at the same time choosing to give a £9.5 billion pay rise to their friends in the public sector, to pledge £8.3 billion to the amorphous GB Energy project and to increase day-to-day spending by £23 billion this year.

These were all choices, and it is hospices, charities, healthcare providers, early years settings and small businesses that will pay the price. That is what my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham was saying: he felt that it was the wrong choice.

In November last year, the Nuffield Trust predicted that the Government’s jobs tax would cost the independent sector’s social care employers in the region of £940 million in 2025-26, and that is on top of around £1.85 billion more that they need to meet the new minimum wage rates from April. These are all relevant to this amendment.

I am particularly concerned about the hospice sector, and that is why I have tabled my own amendment with the support of my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Howard of Lympne. Both my noble friends spoke with great eloquence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so I will not repeat any of that, but I will say that Hospice UK has confirmed to us that the sector is headed for a £60 million deficit this year. The Health Secretary announced £100 million to make sure we are protecting our hospices, but last week the Prime Minister was forced to admit that that is capital funding and will not have a direct impact on the day-to-day costs. Further to that, I understand from boring into the detail that the £26 million that the Minister mentioned in Committee on day 3 represents almost no new money at all; so, we have a big problem.

Finally, it was reported that the National Pharmacy Association has taken the unprecedented step of voting for collective action in protest at a £250 million hike in business costs that pharmacists face under the Government. If the Minister will not listen to the Official Opposition, perhaps he will listen to the experts, the GPs, the hospices and the charities, which are all telling us that the Government must think again. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: the Government must act urgently to protect our health and care providers, our GPs and our hospices before it is too late. Should the noble Baroness choose to test the opinion of the House, we will be with her in the Lobby.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I realise that I am very much in danger of becoming repetitive, but this is the last grouping that we will deal with today. If I may, I always feel like cheering on the noble Lord, Lord Porter, every time I hear him speak, which may put him in jeopardy, but it is probably reflected by voices across the Committee.

The issues being raised are crucial. I will not repeat the discussion that we had last Monday and Wednesday, which covered this same area in great detail. However, the amendments put forward then, which would basically exclude adult and child social care, housing associations, charities and others from the changes in the employers’ NICs threshold, would answer very many of the problems that local authorities are going to face. While I understand that this amendment seeks an impact assessment, we go for exclusion of these various necessary services and on that, once again, we stand our ground.

I thought that there might be some mention of town and parish councils in this group, which will get no protection at all from the increases in employers’ national insurance that they will face. We put forward an amendment last week that would exclude them from this. Once again, I ask that town and parish councils not be overlooked in the process of understanding that the public sector will be protected. With the changes that the Government are mooting in going to strategic authorities, town and parish councils will be the only real local government layer left, quite frankly, where somebody within a community knows that community, speaks to the people in it and acts on their behalf. Because they are funded purely through tax rather than through some government grant, the Government have not given them the off-set for the additional costs that they will have to carry. They amount to so little—£10 million a year. The Government would not even notice it. Without that, because they have no other sources of income, they will absolutely be required to increase their taxes by between 1.5% and 3.5%.

These councils should not be overlooked. They might be very small, but they are vital. For many people in this era, they are the connection to politics in a world where there is so much cynicism over politics and people do not feel the reality of it any more. I hope very much that the Conservatives, having made such strong statements on the effect of all these changes, will consider coming into the Lobbies with us on Report.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 70. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Fuller has joined the Committee today and spoken with such passion and eloquence, and I support his proposal for an impact assessment of the costs involved with this Act on local authorities. It was also good to hear from my noble friend Lord Porter; as a former civil servant many years ago, I was amused by his comment about policies hanging around in a drawer. I particularly remember that when I used to go to the Council in Brussels; there were a lot of proposals that used to hang around for a long time.

I agree that the jobs tax is the wrong approach, and I agree with my noble friend Lord Jackson that there are some tricky issues in parts of local government. I have to say that I have often been an admirer of local government, particularly councils, over a long career.

This week the Government confirmed £502 million of funding to help local authorities to cover the increased costs of directly employed staff due to the changes in the national insurance contributions. Ministers have also allocated £13 million separately to mayoral combined authorities, with some allocations to follow in due course. As we have heard, local authorities will need additional support in the face of the jobs tax. I welcome the fact that Ministers have brought this support forward, but we have heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller that that the allocation is totally inadequate. He called it a £1.226 billion headache, while my noble friend Lord Jamieson, also very experienced in this area, explained that it is just not possible to absorb these sorts of costs, for example, by reducing prices to suppliers. Services will inevitably have to be cut.

I shall highlight some examples where we believe the allocations will fall short. Hampshire County Council is facing a £10 million increase in costs due to the increase in NICs but the allocation it has received from the Government is just £7 million, leaving a £3 million shortfall, which I suspect is quite typical. My noble friend Lord Jackson talked of the likely demise of the lido in Peterborough and of libraries that are closing, although I am glad to say that, so far, we have kept our libraries open in Wiltshire. We are also hearing reports from Kensington and Chelsea and Harlow councils that they are facing a shortfall following the announcement of the allocations.

Clearly the Government’s additional allocations need to cover every penny of the increased cost to local authorities, otherwise they are going to have to cut services. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could commit to engaging with MHCLG to seek assurances about what is happening and how that could be improved.

Councils, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Fuller, have been treated a lot worse than sectors like the police, the Civil Service and the National Health Service. This is a case in point for the argument we have been making throughout Committee where the Government have failed to produce thorough and comprehensive impact assessments. Mistakes like this can be made. The new refusal of the Treasury to provide essential information in debates like this, when such major changes are taking place, is extremely disappointing, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, in her usually trenchant way. The Minister needs to listen to the Opposition when we call for a proper assessment of the impact of this policy on our local authorities. We want to know about other sectors too, but local authorities are this particular group’s concern and we will be returning to the charge.

The truth is that the Bill is very damaging. It will have perverse effects that will reduce the expected national insurance and tax take, as we have heard from the OBR, and it will have a negative effect on jobs, prices and growth. I hope the Minister will think further in the light of these four days of debate before Report.

I should say that I have enjoyed this Committee because of the insights it has given into many sectors and their challenges. It has been an extraordinary cross-cutting debate, and I look forward to Report on 25 February after our much-needed winter break.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is the average salary bill, so the noble Lord is right that an increase in the employment allowance would not absorb all the extra costs.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I think the term “rounding error” might apply.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Obviously, for smaller bodies, the employment allowance is, as the Minister has said on several occasions, helpful because it alleviates the cost of the changes. Therefore, looking at the employment allowance is another way of coming at the issue, which is one of the reasons why we have put it forward for discussion.

Despite the fact that many hospices provide functions that would otherwise need to be provided by the NHS or social care, the Government have failed to recognise their importance and are instead taxing the hospices that the country relies on. Although hospices do not charge for their services, they receive only one-third of their funding from the Government and rely on charitable donations for the remainder of their income. This will place unnecessary and costly additional pressures on their finances at a time when demand for hospice care is growing. The Government seem to be unaware of the great help hospices provide and the fact that they reduce pressure on the NHS by providing services in a more efficient and effective way. There is a saving there to offset any cost.

While I am aware that the Minister claims that the already published impact note is enough, I have not heard another noble Lord agree with that. Although I am sure he will respond in a similar manner, the current note is simply not sufficient and does not include any impact assessment on the very businesses it is being imposed on. That is very concerning for hospices which do so much work to support the NHS and could well be bankrupted by this Government’s decision to introduce the jobs charge. The charity for children’s hospices, Together for Short Lives, has estimated that this tax rate will cost an additional £133,966 for every children’s hospice. That is an extraordinarily high number for a sector that is not profit-orientated, and I am concerned about that impact. Although I welcome the £100 million in funding that the Government have announced for hospice improvements, that money will not help with the staffing costs that these hospices will now face.

As my noble friend Lady Monckton said, hospices are life affirming and give wide support beyond the patients in the hospices to the families in their grief. They are a vital part of the palliative care system, as I hope the Minister will agree. I think that the Government will be blamed if hospices go into a downward spiral as a result of these extra costs in April. They should look again at some way of helping them, whether it is an exemption, a delay, a change to the employment allowance or some form of compensation. It is an important matter that we should address in this Committee.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Committee stage
Wednesday 29th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. It must be galling for the Minister to sit here and be lectured by the Conservative Benches because he and I so often tried to obtain information and were consistently denied it. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked why there was not a greater outcry. Everybody just got so used to being denied information.

I am sure that the Minister will also be able to cite many economic crises when information was not provided—I have to say, the silence on the Conservative Benches in not calling out for that information was very loud, if I can put it that way. I am sure that, if the Conservatives were back in government again, we would get the same absence of transparency and limitations on information. There are perhaps two honourable exceptions—the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe—who stood out against their party when every other voice was one that co-operated in that silence.

That silence was part of the reason why there was so much mistrust of the Conservative Government in the end; it was part of their undermining. As the Minister and his Government start to look at reform, which they are looking at more generally—particularly in dealing with the Civil Service—looking for opportunities for transparency would be a really positive move. With information, we stand on more secure ground. Will he consider that? I have asked him that before.

It is realistic to understand that we are unlikely to get impact assessments ahead of the actions that the Government contemplate doing in the next few weeks, or just in the next couple of months, but post reviews are at least a place to begin. They shed light, and they help both the Government and Parliament to understand where things have been effective and where they have not. If the Minister feels that he cannot accept these kinds of requests for immediate impact assessments, will he consider seriously the various requests made in other groupings for post-facto analysis and review?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall just say this briefly: we need more transparency on such a major policy change, but we are not getting it. There is a large negative impact on business and charities, which is—I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes, a fellow-in-crime in asking for impact assessments—unprecedented. As my noble friend Lord Blackwell said, we are seeing a shift in jobs from the private sector to the public sector, which we fear is bad for jobs, productivity and growth. That is why we need to find a way of getting better assessment and having a process for review.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Instead of focusing only on the economic difficulties, I thought I would start by welcoming the improvement in the terms of our exports to China, which helps, in a small way, to redress the huge imbalance in trade that we have with China. The Chancellor has announced £600 million-worth of opportunities secured in Beijing. She states that barriers that restrict our exports to China in the agricultural sector—that would be pork and poultry, vaccines and fertilisers—will be lifted in an attempt to boost trade. I recall exporting chickens’ feet to China when I worked in the food industry. Will the Minister explain what exactly the real change is here?

Similarly, on financial services, can the Minister explain the improvements apparently being made? The green bond is welcome—I remember helping to launch other green bonds at the Stock Exchange—but can we have more chapter and verse on the other financial services gains? I mean gains to UK plc as opposed just to China—concrete changes that are not just warm words from bankers and legal firms, who obviously find the market difficult. We need to know more about the tangible benefits that the Minister outlined.

More broadly, of course, we are very concerned about the deterioration in the economic position back here at home in terms of debt, interest, rates of inflation and economic growth. In the Chancellor’s absence, the value of the pound plummeted and government borrowing costs rose to a 27-year high.

Let us consider growth. The Government inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet growth is now non-existent, and that means less money for public services. The Government are rightly exploring some obvious opportunities for growth: planning reform, the use of AI and improvement in skills. However, the fact is that businesses are vital to growth, and they have been dealt a triple whammy of costs.

The recent Budget broke election promises, introduced significant tax hikes and has been detrimental to British businesses and business confidence more broadly. Frankly, confidence is tanking, as many surveys and announcements show. This, combined with an increase in borrowing by an extra £30 billion a year, has inevitably caused international markets to question the future of the UK economy.

Instead of looking forward, there is much talk on the Benches opposite about the mythical black hole, but much of this is of the Government’s own making: over £8 billion on a public energy company, over £7 billion on a National Wealth Fund and nearly £10 billion of taxpayers’ money on public sector pay settlements without—this is so important—any requirement for a productivity return, at the very moment when it is right to extract one.

While many on the Government Benches may point to an international trend of rising borrowing costs, it should be noted that the gap between our bond yields and those of similar economies is growing. We now find ourselves in a position in which the UK’s long-term borrowing costs have risen to the highest level in nearly 30 years, and the pound has been at a 14-month low.

Can the Minister tell the House how the Government intend to address and restore stability in international markets? The increase in our borrowing costs is believed to have added roughly £12 billion to the UK’s annual spending in debt interest; that is 100 times what the Chancellor claims she accrued from her trip to Beijing. This £12 billion could have covered the costs of the winter fuel payment cut for eight and a half years or funded 300,000 nurses. According to the OBR forecast, two-thirds of the money raised from the Government’s jobs tax will have to be used to finance additional debt interest. As a consequence of the Chancellor’s policies, borrowing by the final year of the forecast will be doubled.

I repeat the question I posed to the Minister earlier today and encourage him to be more forthcoming. Will the Government do a U-turn on the spending increases that the Chancellor promised in the Budget? Will they borrow more or will they increase taxes further? One of these will have to give if the OBR’s update in March determines that the Chancellor is in breach of her own fiscal rules.

I am afraid that it is working people who will pay the price of the unfortunate decisions made by this Government in their Budget.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we must not allow anxiety about America under Trump and Musk, particularly on tariffs and climate change, to drive us into an unhealthy economic relationship with China. China is, of course, an economic powerhouse and our fourth-biggest trading partner, and there is more trade to be had, especially in financial services, to benefit both parties—but China is a very mixed blessing. It remains a cyber threat. Without greater transparency and safeguards, it is a potential threat to the integrity of our national security. It does not challenge the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It does not share our commitment to human rights and to democracy in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The imprisonment of Jimmy Lai is both a tragedy and a warning that our values are not respected. We on these Benches wish that the Chancellor had held firm and refused to go to China unless Jimmy Lai is released. China is a country that exploits weakness.

In light of these concerns, will the Government strengthen foreign direct investment screening and cyber defences, including increased data transparency requirements? Will they cease research co-operation on technology with China, its companies and researchers if adequate reciprocity and transparency cannot be achieved? Will they enact Magnitsky legislation to hold Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible following gross breaches of human rights in Hong Kong and Xinjiang province? Given the recent discovery of Chinese spying across several senior levels of the British establishment, do the Government agree that China should be placed in the enhanced tier for the foreign influence registration scheme?

Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister may be pleased to hear that I have very little to say on this SI. It makes sense to me. The Bank of England report on the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC argues clearly and logically that, in any reasonable scenario, SVB’s UK tier 1 and tier 2 capital would have been wiped out, so there are no grounds to compensate the former US parent.

However, the fact that this SI is needed raises a question. The resolution of large banks that fail would require wiping out shareholders and calling in bail-in bonds under the MREL procedures without compensation. Would those processes all require a report and an SI to be laid in order for action by the Bank of England to be legal? If that is what the legislation currently says, is there a flaw in the resolution legislation? If there is a flaw, does it need to be rectified? In other words, it seems extraordinary that we need an SI under these circumstances at all.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I also welcome the draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024. It rightly confirms in law that no compensation is due to shareholders of Silicon Valley Bank UK Ltd on the transfer of shares to HSBC UK Bank plc in March 2023, when, as the Minister explained, the former experienced rapid deposit outflows.

The swift action that the last Government took to facilitate the sale averted a potential catastrophe for tech start-ups and small businesses dependent on that bank—precisely the kind of enterprises that can help to drive Britain’s growth and innovation in the decades to come. The special resolution regime reinforced trust in the financial system while reminding us that stability is the foundation upon which innovation thrives.

Although I welcome this order, can the Minister clarify how the lessons learned from this well-handled crisis will inform future regulation of mid-sized banks? Further, can he elaborate on how the scheme aligns with our wider growth agenda? To my mind, the tech sector is critical to Britain’s global competitiveness, and maintaining its trust in the financial system is key to sustaining our position as a world-leading hub for innovation—an ambition that is under some challenge, as I mentioned earlier. But I am very happy with this order.

Financial Services: Mansion House Speech

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Chancellor’s speech at the Mansion House covered a wide range of very important topics which we will need to discuss over the coming months. I can touch on only a few of them today. However, perhaps first we should note that very recent developments include an unexpected reduction in the rate of economic growth and an increase in the rate of inflation; and, today, an increase in monthly borrowing to £17.4 billion—the highest level ever outside the pandemic.

The reduction in the growth rate in the fourth quarter was brought about in part by the unwise and inaccurate remarks on the state of the British economy that have been made frequently by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor since taking office. Taken alongside the problems of the Budget, it has not been an auspicious beginning for the Government. Some of the effects on hard-working citizens, small businesses and farmers were brought to our attention outside this very building only this week. Furthermore, the UK gilt market has taken a hit, meaning that the cost of servicing our debt has risen. The last time yields on 10-year gilts were this high, Labour promised it would ensure that it never happened again; and, of course, higher bond yields mean higher debt-servicing costs. How do the Government intend to square this particular circle?

One major sector covered by the Chancellor’s very comprehensive speech was pensions, which are important for almost everyone. We share the Chancellor’s aims of securing greater returns for pension savers while at the same time enabling pension funds to contribute to funding increased infrastructure spending here in the UK. These objectives are not necessarily incompatible, but it will be difficult to bring about both. We on these Benches will take a keen interest in how this initiative is taken forward in the forthcoming pensions Bill and elsewhere. When can we expect more details?

We are also keen to know more about how, precisely, the proposed pension megafunds will work and, in particular, what rules they will need to follow as regards UK and foreign investments. We all know about the massive investment that Australian and Canadian funds have made in UK infrastructure. Will the proposed UK funds be able to invest in a similar fashion overseas? The Government have proposed consolidating 86 local authority pension funds into eight. When will this occur and on what criteria? How will the interests of those in well-run funds be protected from the ravages of the less successful ones?

Lastly, I return to the Government’s stated first aim of improving the rate of economic growth. We want them to succeed; really, we do. Per capita growth is the right measure of success. All economic policies should have growth as one of their aims, so I note with particular satisfaction that the Chancellor has recently impressed on several economic regulators that this should be their objective also. Otherwise, unfortunately, the Government have made a poor start on achieving growth and managing inflation. When we left government, we had the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Now that has greatly diminished. Let us hope, for the sake of our citizens, that the Government will do better in future.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, my party is determined to see growth in the UK economy and to use tools such as reform of the financial services sector to drive that growth, though we would put much more emphasis on a revival of community banking and financing for SMEs. High risk, however, is not for all. For people with small pensions, safety—not a jackpot—is the goal. Will the Minister assure this House that, in all the various changes, small pensions will in some way be backstopped from losses generated through higher risk, including illiquid investments? In Canada, which seems to be a template for the Government, public sector pension funds are, in effect, wholly backstopped by the state.

Members on these Benches remember the financial crisis of 2007, which destroyed growth for a generation. It was enabled by gullibility and naivety in dealing with the financial sector, both by Conservative and Labour Governments and by the regulators. The Bank of England is re-looking at the regulation of CCPs to allow greater derivates risk; the PRA now allows insurance companies to hold illiquid assets without relevant reserves; the bank ring-fence is being undermined, and the FCA plans to gut the clawback on bankers’ bonuses and downgrade the certification of senior managers. We are back to jobs for the boys.

Much more—if I understand the Chancellor correctly in the Mansion House speech—is to come. I sat for two years on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, listening to the pernicious incompetence of masters of the universe who were turning a deliberate blind eye to market manipulation, mis-selling and money laundering, with no acceptance of responsibility. Will the Minster read the reports of the PCBS before he proceeds with any further weakening of regulation? If this is not done with extraordinary care, we risk seeing the reseeding the next financial crisis.

Collective Investment Schemes (Temporary Recognition) and Central Counterparties (Transitional Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Kramer and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 18th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be relatively brief because these are highly technical instruments, but there are some comments that I would like to make.

I shall start with the collective investment schemes and central counterparties order and begin with collective investments schemes. I ran this one by my noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, who is the ultimate guru in our party on collective investments schemes and, I suspect, one of the experts on them within the House, and her report was “It’s absolutely fine, let it go”, so I will happily take that position on the necessary tidy-up of the changes in the language for collective investment schemes.

However, the second part of that order is far more interesting and raises some questions, about not the language but the broader issue of central counterparties and the hint that this regulation may contain. Everyone in this Room understands that central counterparties became an instrument for countering the fallout of the 2008 financial crash when liquidity seized up across the financial services sector because, within that huge area of derivatives—I think derivatives outstanding typically exceed something like $60 trillion at any one time—the outside world did not know who owed what to whom and therefore who was at risk from which failure and whether there would be domino effect. Indeed, liquidity then seized up and we went from a contained financial crisis into a wholesale financial crisis. Now, vanilla transactions and derivative arrangements that go beyond the vanilla pass through central counterparties so that there is a middleman, if you like, that can hold the risk so that if one party fails, the counterparty takes the risk, not the person who holds the mirror transaction on the opposite side.

I think everyone has always recognised—I could quote Andy Haldane, but I have done it too often before—that, in a sense, the central counterparty is an accumulation of risk. One could almost think of it as an unexploded bomb. Serious levels of risk are contained with the central counterparty and, if anything goes awry, the shock to the financial system would be global. The Committee will know that many of the counterparties share common ownership. They may look like completely separate organisations, but they feed back and the same parties, in a sense, make up their various memberships and ownerships. Cross-contamination is always a huge risk when dealing with central counterparties.

It is obviously sensible now that, sadly, we have left the EU, that regulation which tied into EU directives should drop away, but I am concerned that this does not become an excuse for playing the game of regulatory arbitrage. We hear constantly about the significance of growth. I do not deny that, but I am concerned about the gradual understating of risk that sits alongside loosening and changing regulation to create the animal spirits that will create growth.

The potential to play a regulatory arbitrage game around central counterparties must be raised in this context. When we required recognition by more than one regulator—ESMA as well as its UK equivalent—we had the constraint of two sets of significant eyes looking at a particular situation. Now there is one set of eyes only. While we always acclaim the importance and, as I often hear, the great superiority of the British regulators in this area, I would very much like some assurances that there is at least some degree of oversight and monitoring in recognising the potential of trying to loosen up regulation around the central counterparties.

Both prior to our exit from the EU and today, the dominant European clearing house—one might say the dominant global one—was LCH. It is no longer called the London Clearing House and its party in Paris is now known as LCH Paris. It is still dependent for about a third of its clientele on recognition from ESMA. ESMA has given it temporary equivalence, but that could be adjusted or changed in future and there could be limitations on European institutions from doing more than a certain percentage of their clearing through LCH or other UK clearing houses. Can the Minister update us on that issue? Is there any sense that the steps we are taking could trigger a more adverse decision from ESMA in reference to UK-based CCPs?

I will very briefly deal with the insurance distribution regulations. Some in this Committee will know that I hate the concept of a regulatory perimeter whereby we regulate activities on one side but not on the other. I gather from the Explanatory Memorandum that some companies which were outside the regulatory perimeter will now be drawn inside it. That can be only a good thing, but there has always been a tendency for companies in the UK to game the regulatory perimeter. They grow to a size that puts them just outside sight of the regulation. Will a significant number of companies be affected by this adjustment in denominating the assets from euros to sterling? Will we see a cluster around the regulatory perimeter and have any concerns been triggered in looking at this set of changes?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I take great pleasure in returning to the Front Bench to debate Treasury matters, albeit now in a shadow capacity. Although I do not have current interests to declare, I hope that my past experience as Commercial Secretary to the Treasury and as a member of the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee will stand me in good stead. Until 2022 I served as a non-executive director of a challenger bank and, of course, I have served in business more generally. I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of these two instruments and their obvious complexities. I am glad of the opportunity to work with her across the House and I look forward to hearing the answers to the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, especially about risk.

Our investment schemes and central counterparties are without question the backbone of the United Kingdom’s financial services industry. They enable our country to attract global capital, support pensions and, ultimately, benefit people and businesses up and down the country. As the Minister said, it is important that the rules and regulations are not needlessly bureaucratic. The removal of EU recognition is welcome. We now have domestic arrangements for oversight and I believe we should not be double-banking, so I am in a slightly different place to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on that.

I wish to make two wider points. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for including a de minimis impact assessment with the first SI. I note that it has also been through the better regulation unit. I have always been a huge supporter of impact assessment and wider cost-benefit analysis of all legislation, but I have two questions. Can the Minister confirm that it is the policy of the new Government to require de minimis assessments of this kind on all SIs—unless the impact is negligible, as with the insurance distribution SI? She can perhaps answer for the Treasury today. I note from GOV.UK that her ministerial role also relates to business regulation more widely. Although she may need to write, I would appreciate a wider answer, as such a requirement would help deliver value for money across government and limit the negative effect on growth of new regulation.

My other concern is the glacial pace at which we are leaving the EU financial services regime behind. The collective investment SI provides for a year’s extension of a temporary regime. Although this may be well and good for the reasons the Minister has clearly explained, I have no idea when the UK will have completed the task of replacing EU financial services law with our own. I was trying to advance this process in 2017 when I was at the Treasury so that we would be ready when Brexit day arrived; as it happened, it did not arrive until January 2020. I believe the transition was well debated during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, but I have two other related questions. Do the Government, with the help of the regulators, have a plan for completing it and taking advantage of any new freedoms and simplifications that are now possible? Will the Minister agree to send me a list of the missing regulations and a timetable?

Although it is a demand, I mean that as a constructive question. Our financial services sector is so important to UK growth, and we need to make sure that these changes are completed, take effect and help our financial services sector, which has so much to contribute to UK growth, productivity and prosperity. Having said that, I am very happy to support the two sets of regulations.