Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my register of interests: a third share in two small Wiltshire fields—what is left of the marginal family farm of my childhood.

I am not surprised that the increases in agricultural and business property taxes in the Budget have proved to be friendless, except in some deeply urban areas. This was demonstrated in last week’s debate on this Question about costs in the other place.

The truth is, the Government have miscalculated. They expected a vindictive tax grab on large estates to be welcomed by those of an envious disposition. Instead, the difficulties faced by the working family farms which produce so much of our food have been noticed, even by the supermarkets. Elderly farmers are especially desperate.

The Government have the ghastly choice of brazening the matter out or making some sensible concessions. There are already whisperings about the latter. Will the Minister help to ensure that the Government reduce the harm to agricultural investment and food security of this misguided policy?

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I do, however, totally dispute her characterisation of this policy. At the Budget, we had to take some very difficult decisions on welfare spending and tax that were necessary to fix the public finances and support our public services. We had to do that to address the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. We took those decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.

As a result of the measures we are taking, individuals will continue to be able to claim 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and 50% thereafter. Given the nil-rate bands, that means a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant inheritance tax-free. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, the measures will go ahead as planned.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Blackwell (Con)]

In that case, I will address that amendment when we come to it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for tabling these amendments and others who have spoken, particularly my noble friend Lord Randall, who supported the amendments highlighting the damage to smaller businesses. I very much share his view.

This has been an interesting discussion and it has brought out how unjust the proposals in the Budget for national insurance were. The amendment rightly draws attention to the problems created across the health sector, all of which we will discuss again in detail on other groups. “Stark” was the rather good word used by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. As we heard at Second Reading, there are appalling consequences for those dealing with some of the most tragic services, including hospices and the transport of those with special educational needs. There will also be an immense strain on care homes, GPs, dentists and pharmacies—mostly small operations employing a number of part-time and low-paid staff. That will seriously impact on the health of the NHS.

What is so unfair is that the public sector is being compensated for the extra costs. That is in contrast to those carrying out public good in the private sector, which, incidentally, we know is more productive. For example, I have been amazed by the industry of family-run pharmacies, which helped so much during Covid and are asked to do more and more year by year. They are having to deal with the treble whammy of NICs, the national minimum wage rises—especially for the young—and the prospect of the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner’s proposals for new employment legislation.

As I highlighted at Second Reading, many in the health sector say that they will be forced to reduce services and limit headcount. For example, we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, about the increased cost of social care faced by the independent care providers—I think he talked about £900 million; I had a figure of £940 million—which simply dwarfs the £600 million support rightly included in the Budget to help the sector. If the Government recognise that this tax is not sustainable for the public sector, why are they unable to apply that same logic to sectors that provide public services? These are not big businesses. They provide a critical service for the people and, if they are unable to do so, that will add to the pressure on the NHS. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, gave a good example of the Cyrenians in Scotland and my noble friend Lord Forsyth rightly mentioned hospices, as I think everybody will do throughout this Committee.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Before my noble friend leaves this figure of £940 million for social care, something like one in seven of the beds in the NHS are occupied by people who are well and who could be discharged. If we are going to add a burden to the social care sector, that £940 million does not take account of the cost to the NHS of those beds being occupied by people who would otherwise be able to be in their own homes, not just saving the taxpayer money but also hugely improving their quality of life. So the £940 million —or the £900 million, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven—is a gross underestimate of the real costs that are being imposed by this policy, is it not?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point. It is a question of the dynamics. I know, having once been a Treasury Minister, that dynamics always worry it. But the fact of the matter is that, if we can get things done and get people out of hospital quicker, as my noble friend suggests, that would make a real difference.

I feel that the proposals that we are faced with for hard-working businesspeople and for social enterprises are a huge slap in the face. They are being discussed on a day when unemployment is rising and job opportunities are falling. I believe that that reflects the impact of the £23.8 billion hit on employers’ national insurance. It is a veritable jobs tax and the gloom that the Government have admitted for the first six months of their tenure has not helped. That is why my noble friend Lord Forsyth was right to regret that we were debating this not on the Floor of the House but in Grand Committee. I hope that none the less we will attempt to give the Bill proper scrutiny here, because if we do not, that would be a big failing.

In that respect, one of the things that annoys me most is the lack of a proper impact assessment. We have a very inadequate impact note, which was published on 13 November. That gives a run of the yield to the Exchequer year by year but does not break it down into the three categories: the costs of the increase to 15%, the lowering of the threshold, which is extremely regressive, and the welcome benefit from the rise in the employment allowance—and indeed anything else included in the figure of £23.8 billion, which was by far the biggest change in the Budget and which is why so many people are here today worrying about the Bill.

There is also an unexpected dynamic effect highlighted by the OBR, which means that, following the reduction in wages, profits and employment, this tax will raise over £5 billion less than the Treasury forecast, raising £18.3 billion in 2025-26 and nearly £10 billion less than the forecast in 2026-27. So there is a great deal of pain for wealth creators and effective employers, but not a lot of gain.

I cannot see how we can scrutinise the Bill without proper impact information, and I look forward to a proper discussion during the debate on Amendment 13. However, I think the Committee would also like to have authoritative, disaggregated figures on the impact on the health and care sectors under discussion today. That is why I am raising this now, and I hope the Minister will consider what he can do to assist the Committee so that we can have proper understanding and proper scrutiny. We want to do the right thing here.

It is against that sombre background that I shall speak to my Amendments 38 and 42, which have been grouped with this amendment. They seek to increase the employment allowance in the primary care sector. My purpose is to probe the Government’s openness to helping the sector a bit more through an increase. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the facts. The BMA has said that, as public authorities, they are unable to access support via the increased allowance and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made a similar point in relation to dentists. The Committee needs to know whether that is true.

Mine is a probing amendment and the first of several relating to Clause 3. To reply to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, as someone who has tried to reform taxes in the past, originally with the help of my noble friend Lord Heseltine as part of the deregulation initiative, it is very difficult to get simplification of the tax system. That is one reason why I have tabled an amendment relating to the employment allowance, because it comes at the matter in a different way.

Primary care is vital to the Government’s plans to improve the NHS. My fear is that the NICs changes, especially the lowering of the threshold and with part-time working so common in primary care, will lead to further problems in GP surgeries, increasing chronic conditions and waiting times for appointments across the NHS, and having the perverse effect that I think we will come back to as this Committee progresses.

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

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to respond to the debate on this first group of amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed so far. It is also a pleasure to see so many noble Lords in the Grand Committee. I know that some noble Lords are unhappy about being here, but the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, in particular, and I know what it feels like to be in this Grand Committee on our own, so it is, at least, I have to say, nice to be popular.

Before I address each of the amendments in this group, I shall very briefly set out at the outset the context in which the Budget decisions contained in the Bill were taken. I would like to do so since this context is why we are here today and underpins the debates that we will have, not just on this group of amendments, but on all further groups. As noble Lords will know, the Government inherited three distinct challenges: the need to repair the public finances; the need to rebuild public services; and the need to protect working people.

The most pressing of these challenges was the need to repair the £22 billion black hole in the public finances as a result of a series of commitments made by the previous Government which they did not fund. The previous Government also made no provision for costs that they knew would materialise, including £11.8 billion to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal and £1.8 billion to compensate victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal. These pressures have to be funded, and it falls to this Government to do so.

Noble Lords will also know that the country inherited acute problems in public services, with NHS waiting lists at record levels, children in Portakabins as school roofs crumbled around them and rivers filled with polluted waste. Yet since 2021, there had been no spending review and no detailed plans for departmental spending were set out for beyond this year. Working people had also lived through a cost-of-living crisis, with inflation peaking at 11.1% and remaining above target for 33 consecutive months. Combined with the previous Government’s decision to freeze income tax thresholds—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I asked a question which, in relation to dentists, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. It was about the definition of “public authorities” and how that affects payment of the employment allowance. I raised it at Second Reading as well. It would be helpful to have a judgment on that point.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The definition is set as it was previously. We have no intention of changing that definition.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

To be clear, that means these bodies will not have access to the employment allowance if they are public authorities. It would be helpful to know what the costings of that look like. I know that the Minister does not want to make any changes, but we are trying to understand what the numbers are here and in some minor areas, such as hospices. The Minister says that hospices will have extra money, but they will also have to pay a lot extra in national insurance. We are trying to understand all that to give him helpful feedback on the Bill; obviously, we are as keen as he is for it to succeed.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I would be very happy to look into the specific point made by the noble Baroness. I will feed back in my responses on a subsequent group.

--- Later in debate ---

At present, as I understand it, there is still an exemption on NI contributions for veterans in their first job after they have left the Armed Forces. If I am indeed correct in that, can the Minister explain to the Committee how that is going to be dealt with in the current changes to the legislation? Will that simply be abolished by this general increase in national insurance contributions? In short, I should like at least to do what I have done, which is to raise the importance of supporting veterans back into employment. An attack on jobs through an increase in national insurance contributions is a general problem, but it is a particular problem for getting veterans back into employment. Specifically, is the NI contribution exemption for the first year still going to be in place under the Government’s new legislation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I did not say I wanted the Bill to go through. I agree that that it is a jobs tax, as the noble Baroness said. What I accept is that the Government have a large majority in the other House, and what I am trying to do in this House is to have a proper discussion on the Bill with a view, perhaps, to amending it and persuading the Government that they have made some mistakes and that we can improve the Bill.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The noble Baroness is trying to encourage the Liberal Democrats to be in agreement with the Conservatives, rather as her noble friend Lord Forsyth suggested at one point that he was in favour of the amendment from my noble friend Lord Scriven. We need to be a little bit careful not to agree with each other too often. But she is absolutely right. The Government have a large majority in the other place and it is not the business of this House to go against the Salisbury/Addison convention. However, I do not remember this being a manifesto commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Newnham and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, which seek to exempt veteran salaries from the employer national insurance changes. These amendments would create a different employer national insurance rate and threshold set at the current levels for salaries of veterans. The Government of course recognise the huge contributions made by the UK Armed Forces and veterans in this country, and I completely understand the intention behind these amendments.

As some noble Lords have mentioned, there is already an employer national insurance relief available for the earnings of veterans, meaning that employers are not required to pay any national insurance contributions up to £50,270 for the first year of civilian employment. At the Budget, the Government decided to extend the national insurance contributions relief for employers who hire veterans to support veterans in their first year of civilian employment for a further year. Despite the challenging fiscal inheritance this Government face, this means we are maintaining this relief and it is not changing as a result of this Bill.

Further to this, we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that more than half of businesses with national insurance liabilities either gain or see no change next year. Businesses and charities will still be able to claim employer national insurance reliefs, including those for under-21s and under-25 apprentices, where eligible.

On veterans more widely, this Government have taken action to demonstrate our commitment to renew this nation’s contract with those who have served. We have awarded £3.7 million in veterans housing grants, veterans will be exempt from the local connection test for social housing in England and veteran cards are now accepted ID for elections. We are progressing veterans support programmes at pace, including a centralised referral pathway designed to support veterans who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, an NHS mental health specialist service designed to help veterans and their families in England and an NHS physical health specialist service designed to help veterans and their families in England.

Before I sit down, I shall also address the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about dentists, which I was unable to answer during the debate on the previous group. As I said, the criteria have not changed, including the exclusion of those doing 50% of their work in the public sector. The eligibility is down to individual businesses, and the proportion of their work in the public sector may vary year to year. All charities can claim, including hospices.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My point was in relation to the points made by the BMA and the dentists. There are two separate points. It is not in this group, but it might be as well to have a discussion on this so that we can be clear about this and on the impact on these important areas for the future of health in the NHS.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

Can the Minister clarify something? I understood that the national insurance contributions relief for veterans had been extended for one year and that this Bill was not going to affect veterans. Surely at some point it cuts out. Is that correct, so that this would be valid only up to 2026?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, I will try to be extremely brief because no doubt I will be interrupted again. The point I was making was that if you cut tax in one area, you are going to have to raise it somewhere else. That is always problematic.

There are two other reasons why I have some reservations about this amendment. First, it is often thought—the Financial Secretary will remember this because we worked together on measures in the early 2000s—that part-time workers are poor. However, if you look at the poverty statistics, many part-time workers live in quite affluent households. My point is that as a measure to target people on low income, this is a very blunt instrument. It is far better to target them through tax credits, or universal credit as it is now called.

My final points relates to having worked on national insurance over three decades or more and is about the danger of creating steps in the system. I remember large numbers of workers bunching below the lower earnings limit, which was totally understandable as it was in their interest and their employer’s interest. By creating steps in the system, you discourage people from moving up the earnings ladder. In the short term, I could understand that cutting national insurance for the self-employed would genuinely incentivise the employment of part-time workers, but once in place, over time the existence of the step would trap many workers in this part-time zone because their employers would not want them to cross the step that resulted in higher national insurance. I warn against targeted measures such as this as they tend to cause difficulty and disappointment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is not in his place and associate myself with the request for some information about Scotland.

The amendments address a matter of real importance, which is the impact of the measures on part-time and seasonal workers, SMEs, hospitality and tourism. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is right about the importance of part-time working in tourism, pubs, restaurants and events. That sector is sometimes neglected in public policy-making, but it is vital to growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

--- Later in debate ---

In light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, while no impact assessment is perfect, I think it is very difficult to call this note of 13 November detailed. The only numbers it gives are the global numbers, the £23.7 billion et cetera, and the run, and there are a few textual comments about equalities and things. What it does not do is even break down the costings into the different areas where different measures are being taken. It is not a detailed assessment; it is described, rightly, as an impact note. We will return to this, because we think that transparency and understanding the impact of policies is really helpful, including to His Majesty’s Government.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful and descriptive introduction. I will not repeat all the detail he kindly gave us. Like him, I much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Batters. She is a near neighbour of mine in Wiltshire and a trailblazing first female president of the National Farmers’ Union. We worked together professionally, and I know the House will benefit hugely from her talents and energy.

It is clear from discussions in the other place that there is practically universal support for helping Ukraine in its struggles. The United Kingdom was a first mover in supporting Ukraine in 2022. Prime Minister Boris Johnson led the charge and there has been an encouraging consistency in support through the premierships of Liz Truss, Rishi Sunak and, of course, our Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. We have pledged over £12 billion since 2022 and sanctioned more than 2,000 entities. Moreover, many people in Britain have generously welcomed displaced Ukrainian families into their homes.

The proposed arrangement is an unusual one, of which the UK was a vociferous advocate. From these Benches we support the UK loan to Ukraine of £2.26 billion, which will be repaid from revenue earned on frozen Russian assets. We also support the decision to earmark the UK contribution towards military expenditure, including on air defence, artillery and other equipment so desperately needed by our Ukrainian allies. This is particularly important as the £20 billion coming from the United States is being handled by the World Bank, which I believe means that it cannot be used for military purposes.

We therefore support the Bill. We would, however, need convincing if the Government were minded to contemplate seizing Russian assets themselves. That would be a large step with wider ramifications and would need detailed scrutiny.

I should add that I have some professional experience of dealing with Ukraine and, to speak frankly, there were issues with the siphoning off of expenditure in the health area, which the not-for-profit development body I chaired helped to end—with the support of some brave reformers in the Ukraine Government. This was before the accession of Mr Zelensky, and I know that his leadership is determined to avoid a return of this kind of practice. However, it means that the detailed arrangements for the loans need to be clear and transparent, so I have some questions to ask the Minister about the practical application of the Bill.

First, can he outline for the House the specific mechanisms by which our UK loans will be distributed and managed? Ensuring that this significant financial commitment is deployed in a timely way will be critical to achieving the desired impact.

Secondly, what parties will be involved in the transfer of these loans? Will the money be transferred directly by HM Treasury to the Government of Ukraine, will it be added to a shared pot with the G7 or will the Government use a third party, as the US is doing, which in our case might be a law firm, a specialist bank or some other body?

Thirdly, I have a novel point since we will have a new United States President in a matter of days. He has expressed a determination to bring the war in Ukraine to an end, so we need to reflect on the ramifications for this Bill. Any Trump deal might contain financial provisions. The Government need to be vigilant in ensuring that any terms ensure that the repayment of the sums provided by the Treasury continues—otherwise, there will be a substantial and unplanned cost to the UK taxpayer. The Minister will wish to comment and let us know whether the arrangements planned make that a needless concern, as I very much hope.

As we provide financial aid, we must also remain vigilant about the broader security implications of this conflict. The war in Ukraine is a stark reminder that the peace and stability we often take for granted are not guaranteed but must be actively defended. The international situation is more concerning by the day, whether in the Middle East, North Korea or the South China Sea. In recent weeks, NATO chiefs have issued warnings that the alliance must increase defence budgets to match the levels of threat we face. The new US President has called for a major increase in spending by European states, so this is a matter of key concern. The Government are yet to announce when they will reach the target of 2.5% of GDP on defence spending, a figure that many influential observers now consider to be too low. There is a strong case for speeding up this announcement. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to update us on the Government’s plans.

Furthermore, it is vital that we take a long-term view on this issue. Have the weapons that we have sent Ukraine been replaced? While immediate military aid to Ukraine is crucial, we must also ensure that our own Armed Forces are adequately equipped, trained and funded to address a broad spectrum of potential threats. This includes not only conventional military readiness but investments in emerging domains, such as cyber defence, where adversaries are increasingly active.

Although the moneys under discussion today do not come out of the defence budget, it is important, in an increasingly dangerous world, to focus on our defence. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government remain fully committed to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP as soon as possible?

In conclusion, supporting Ukraine is not only a moral imperative but a strategic necessity. This Bill, which we support, represents a new step in reinforcing our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. However, it is incumbent upon us, as legislators, to ensure that this financial assistance is delivered effectively and transparently. I look forward to hearing from all noble Lords and to receiving answers to my questions from the Minister. Let us together send a clear and united message that the United Kingdom stands firmly with Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not have that information to hand, but I will happily check for the noble Lord.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked whether the UK’s contribution to the scheme would increase if the United States or another participant chose to withdraw. I can confirm to noble Lords that this would not affect the UK’s contribution, which will remain at £2.26 billion. We are clear that that is the right and balanced approach, reflecting our fiscal pressures and Ukraine’s needs. The £2.26 billion figure is also proportionate to our GDP share within the G7 and the EU. We will of course continue to co-ordinate with G7 partners on the scheme going forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, asked for an update on the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea Football Club. The Government are working hard to ensure the proceeds from the sale reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. The proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money. Creating an organisation of this scale is complex and officials continue to hold discussions with relevant parties to reach a resolution. As you would expect, we must review the details of any such arrangement to maintain the integrity of our sanctions regime.

In conclusion, we must ensure that Putin has no path to military victory in Ukraine. That means continuing to provide military and economic support to enable Ukraine to defeat Putin’s war machine. The combined $50 billion of new funding, delivered together with our allies in the G7 and backed by profits from immobilised Russian assets, will provide a crucial boost to Ukraine as it continues its third winter at war. It represents an investment not only in Ukraine’s future but in the security and prosperity of Europe more widely, and it demonstrates the shared resolve of the international community in the face of ongoing Russian aggression. I welcome the fact that noble Lords from all sides of the House have been united in saying that we must stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. This Bill will allow us to honour that commitment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, there was one question about the announcement on the 2.5% of GDP. The noble Lord helpfully clarified that the money in this Bill was extra, which is good news, but I think several of us were concerned to know when decisions would be taken on the timing of the 2.5%.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I answered that exact question from the noble Baroness. As we have said all along, we will set out a path to 2.5% at a future fiscal event.

Sterling: Rise in Yields on 30-year Gilts

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the rise in the yields on 30-year gilts to 5.37 per cent, the highest level since 1998, and the effect of this on sterling.

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

My Lords, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. Gilt yields are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors and it is normal for the price and yields of gilts to vary when there are wider movements in global financial markets. The Government are committed to economic stability and sound public finances. Meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and growth is our number one mission.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the annual cost of servicing the national debt is now over £100 billion and is estimated to have grown by £12 billion since the Budget. Gilt yields have leaped up, with the critical 10-year rate now at 4.88%—the highest since 2008. The Government need to grasp the seriousness of the situation and the concern that the OBR report is more than two months away. Their own fiscal rules are in jeopardy. Which of their commitments do they propose to break—not cutting expenditure or not raising taxes? Can the Minister rule out an emergency Budget?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, financial markets are always evolving so it is a long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. She will also know that the Chancellor has commissioned the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out an updated economic and fiscal forecast for 26 March, which will incorporate the latest data. Only the OBR’s forecast can accurately predict the effect on the public finances of any changes in financial markets or the economy, and I will not pre-empt it. However, there should be absolutely no doubt of our commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. That is why meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.

UK-China Economic and Financial Dialogue

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I commend the noble Earl for his efforts to try to portray the previous Government’s record on the economy as some kind of success, whereas everyone listening both in the Chamber and outside knows that it was 14 years of total catastrophe. He mentioned inflation as if 33 months in a row above the Government’s target was something to be proud of, when we know that it hurt family finances dramatically over that time. He tried to say that the previous Government did well on growth, when we know that growth was one of their biggest failures. They took investment out of the economy at a vital moment with their austerity programme. They reduced GDP by 4% as a result of their Brexit deal, and then the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the economy, sending mortgage rates soaring by £300 a month, for which ordinary working people are still paying the price. I really reject the fundamental basis of the noble Earl’s question. He asked about timing. He knows very well that it is very difficult to turn around 14 years of failure. We cannot do that in six months, but we are determined to do it and will do whatever it takes to turn around the British economy.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am not sure I am supposed to speak, but I would just say that there was also something called Covid and an energy crisis and Ukraine. It would be good if the Minister sometimes mentioned those as well as some of the other factors.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I know the noble Baroness is desperate to find any scapegoat or excuse for her party’s total failure on the economy. Of course, there are international factors at play, but perhaps she could tell us why the UK was worse affected than any other country in the G7 and any other European country as a result of those things. It is because their austerity and their Brexit left this country more exposed and we therefore suffered far worse than any other country.

Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted that this second set of amendments to these important reporting requirements—I am trying to prevent my teeth from chattering in the cold—focuses on the damaging issue of cash retentions in the construction sector, which was not covered by the first set of amendments that we debated on 26 February last year. Could the Minister, whom I welcome to her post, confirm that that first set of amendments has now come into effect from 1 January this year? I am delighted that the new amendments will take effect from St David’s Day, 1 March. I also welcome the fact that the reporting will take place via an online service so that the information will be available to suppliers on the website as soon as business is publishing.

As we have heard from the Minister, resolving issues such as late payment and cash retentions is vital for smaller construction firms, particularly as the Government are seeking to build 150,000 homes a year while insolvencies among construction businesses continue to be higher than in most or all other sectors. The failure of major players such as ISG can have a devastating impact on small businesses in their supply chains.

The Government’s commitment to support SMEs, including through the reporting measures such as those that we are considering today, as well as the new Fair Payment Code and the promise of a small business strategy to be published this year, is much needed and very welcome. The regulations will provide transparent data about the practice of retentions and the level of late payment for this aspect of construction contracts. Having consistent comparative data concerning retentions will represent significant progress towards increasing the accountability of larger construction companies that subcontract work to smaller firms in the sector. Those subcontractors will be able to gain an understanding of the payment practices of larger companies to help them decide whether or not to do business with them.

I will not comment on the detail of the requirements which the Minister has outlined but I welcome the requirement for a named director to confirm approval of the figures reported, so that it is clear where the responsibility lies. However, that raises the question of the enforcement of these regulations. Will the Minister say something about how robust the data provided will be, given that the requirement is for self-reporting, and whether there will be any process for fact checking the data reported? What mechanisms might be put in place to ensure that the reporting requirements are met and what penalties might there be for not reporting as required or misreporting? Most importantly, can she say anything about what plans there may be in her department to end the damage caused by retentions altogether, either by banning them outright or by ensuring that funds withheld are ring-fenced in a way that protects small firms from never receiving the sums owed to them at all—or receiving a reduced amount or late amounts?

These regulations are a welcome step forward but I hope to hear more from the Minister about what further steps the Government will take to tackle the obstacles preventing small construction firms from contributing as fully as they could and should to the Government’s construction and house-building goals, and especially whether, how and when they might finally take action to bring to an end the pernicious practice of retentions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak from the Back Benches and welcome the Minister to her seat. I was also once a Business Minister and, in my second coming, a Cabinet Office Minister, and I was very much involved in trying to get rid of the curse of late payment. That included the changes to the Procurement Act requiring public sector suppliers to pay their own suppliers on time. That was meant to complement the timely payment by government procurers, which was one of the few positive legacies of Covid. The Government are pretty good at paying on time, although you have to keep departments up to scratch. I am disappointed only that the Government chose to delay the implementation of the Procurement Act and to downplay in the draft guidance note the role of small business, which noble Lords will know that I championed from the Back Benches and later when, surprisingly, I returned to the Front Bench as a Minister.

I rise today to support the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on cash retentions—an issue that he has campaigned on for many years. I associate myself with his good questions on transparency, enforcement and, perhaps more importantly, the Government’s intentions on the broader issue of cash retentions. That has been an abiding problem in the sector for many years. I remember that I promised a review, but I left government too soon to be able to carry through the consequentials. I hope the Minister will take his comments seriously.

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government made their first objective high economic growth and, so far, they have not had that much success. Another prime objective, reiterated by the Minister, was economic stability; again, they have not yet got very far with that. Survey after survey has shown that business confidence has simply collapsed and we can see this in the market. In the last 48 hours, borrowing costs have reached a 27-year high and, of course, every pound that we spend on debt interest is money that we cannot spend on public services. In the Budget, the Chancellor hiked up taxes, increased borrowing by an average of £32 billion a year and conveniently adjusted her fiscal rules. Given that she appears to be about to break those rules, does the Minister stand by the Chancellor’s statement that she is not coming back with more taxes? Yes or no? We are keen to have a clear answer.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She is absolutely right that growth was one of the biggest failures of the previous Government. We are determined to turn that around. She is also correct to say that there should be no doubt of the Government’s commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. That is why meeting the fiscal rules is absolutely non-negotiable. I am not going to pre-empt future fiscal events or spending reviews now, but the Chancellor has been absolutely clear that she would not repeat the likes of the October Budget and is focused on growing the economy so that people in every corner of the UK see an improvement in living standards. We have set very tough fiscal rules, tougher than those of the previous Government, which we meet two years early. We have set the envelope for the second phase of the spending review, which we will stick to. That will involve tough choices on spending, but they are choices we are prepared to make, and our reform agenda will be central to improving services going forward.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I must start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for his clear explanation of this short and simple Bill, the context as he sees it, and the “happy new year” that we all hope to see, despite everything we will probably hear today.

I endorse the tribute from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to Baroness Randerson: what a shock. I will come to the noble Baroness’s Motion later.

Despite the welcome increase in the employment allowance—effectively advocated by my friends at the Federation of Small Businesses—it is difficult to hide the fact that this Bill introduces a jobs tax right across the UK; it represents a £23.7 billion raid on employers. During the general election six months ago, the Labour Party claimed that, if it formed the next Government, the first priority would be to increase the rate of economic growth, and the Chancellor said that they would be the “most pro-business Government ever”—that was the promise. I attended the Times summit, and businesses were very reassured by everything the Chancellor said.

On taking office, the Government, notably the Prime Minister and Chancellor, relentlessly and consistently stressed the allegedly dire state of the national economy, constantly referring to their mythical black hole of £22 billion. I believe it would be true to state that no positive words on UK economic prospects ever passed their lips. But, as Keynes and many other eminent economists stressed long ago, economic success is in part a matter of morale. That discovery was, apparently, forgotten by the Prime Minister and Chancellor.

The Budget is the principal mechanism by which the new Government were able to give effect to their aspirations and objectives. Unfortunately, it was widely and correctly described as anti-business. It raised taxes substantially by placing large new burdens on business, most notably by way of increases in national insurance. The consequences of this pessimism at the top of government, and the extra burdens on business, are clear for all to see: a faltering economy, thought by some commentators even to be verging on depression, and an unpopular Government. That is quite an achievement when the Government are only six months old. Noble Lords will recall that in the first half of the year, the economy was growing strongly and inflation had reduced sharply from the highs created by Covid, Ukraine and the energy crisis. I suggest that gives a much more accurate summary of last year’s economics.

Sadly, the financial world is of a similar view. On 3 January, the critical measure of confidence, the 10-year gilts yield, was at 4.59%, which was higher than its peak after the Kwarteng Budget. In Germany, the bond yield rate at the end of December was 2.38%, and even in Italy it was only 3.52%. This morning, we had a stark warning from the British Chambers of Commerce that more than half of firms were planning to raise their prices in response to tax hikes announced by the Chancellor in October. Business confidence is at a two-year low.

The Government introduced several business-related measures in their Budget, and unfortunately, they were overwhelmingly negative. The increase in employer national insurance contributions, which I will come on to dissect, was accompanied by the partial removal of non-domestic business rate waivers dating back to Covid; a further increase in minimum wages; and an affirmation of plans to introduce costly new rigidities into the labour market. This was a quadruple hit on our hard-working businesses, and that is before accounting for the IHT changes that have so unsettled family businesses and our farming community.

The minimum wage is, of course, something we do not oppose, but it introduces further costs to businesses, especially small businesses, at a time when they are drowning in extra burdens. These businesses all play a crucial role in helping the British economy to grow, which is what we all want.

A number of sectors have released reports detailing the profound consequences these measures will have on their businesses, and this has highlighted the extent to which the Government fail to understand not only the private sector but how to promote and encourage a growing economy. The December growth figures from the ONS were very disappointing: down 0.1%, as were the OECD and IMF comparisons.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, actually set out the Opposition’s position on the various sectors affected. However, her amendment is too kind to the Government; the NICs changes are a jobs tax on all business and not-for-profit sectors, not just a few. Passing it will have no effect on the Bill and do nothing for the groups mentioned. Instead, we need the Liberal Democrats to join us, on Wednesday, in opposing the Bill’s committal to Grand Committee. The Floor of the House is the revising Chamber that can be relied on to delve into vital detail and the perverse effects of such legislation. There is huge concern across the country and we should be debating this Bill, which can be amended—unlike money Bills—in Committee in this Chamber.

I turn to some individual sectors. The Government have angered businesses across retail. Over 70 businesses sent a letter to the Chancellor outlining their concerns. Big employers, including Tesco, Sainsbury and Next, said that:

“For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timescale. The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level”.


We find it particularly concerning that the Government maintain a rhetoric that they are pro-growth and pro-business, without listening to the very businesses that can help them. If they did, they would realise that their plans have not been thought through and that they will have far-reaching consequences in closures and the prevention of growth.

The retail sector estimated that the measures introduced in the Budget will cost the sector up to £7 billion a year, and that these costs will be offset through a reduction in headcount, a freezing of wages and increased prices for the consumer. From my own retail experience and observations in recent weeks, I believe that we risk more insolvencies and empty shops on the high street. This is all too likely to have a multiplier effect on confidence and investment. Reports state that the Centre for Retail Research forecasts over 17,000 store closures in 2025, confirming my fears.

UK hospitality will also pay a high price in adapting to the new taxes. The sector indicated that it will pay at least £1 billion as a result of the increase in national insurance alone and that this will hit its far from buoyant profits. Take an example: a survey from the British Institute of Innkeeping indicates that 40% of independently operating pubs will have to reduce their opening hours as a result of this increase in national insurance contributions alongside the other harmful measures towards businesses included in the Budget. As a pub-goer, I know that turning up to a closed pub puts one off going to the pub again and that that has a multiplier effect.

The increase in NICs is unusual in causing pain to many not-for-profit sectors. They often get by, despite straitened circumstances, because of their workers’ passion and hard work. A good example is our wonderful hospices, as we heard during the PNQ. The charity, Together for Short Lives—a children’s hospice—estimated that this specific increase will put up the cost of providing such hospice care by £5 million across the sector. This will have a seriously detrimental impact on already underfunded hospices and will reduce the availability of lifeline care for children across the country. The Marie Curie charity concluded that the NICs changes will force it to reduce headcount and limit services, with more terminally ill patients staying in hospital, which is bad for them and the NHS, at a time when the debate on assisted dying has highlighted the inadequacy and unevenness of hospice provision. I hope that the Government are listening.

Regrettably, this is part of the wider picture of underfunding in social care, which has already been highlighted. The Nuffield Trust says that independent care providers will face £940 million in additional costs. That dwarfs the £600 million of support introduced in the Budget.

The Government are rightly trying to make more use of pharmacies to tackle waiting times, and yet Community Pharmacy England says that they will be hit by an extra £50 million a year. GPs are caught, as we heard: the Institute of General Practice Management estimates extra costs of about £20,000 a year for the average practice. Ironically, the BMA says that, as public authorities, they are unable to access support via the increased employment allowance. They look with envy and surprise at arrangements already made to protect the NHS and Civil Service from the NICs hikes.

Finally, there is the extraordinary impact on nurseries, where the last Government did so much to extend childcare and help more mothers into work, which boosted growth. The National Day Nurseries Association estimates that the combinations of NICs and salary increases will mean an extra £47,000 on average per nursery, and that those providing more than 50% government-funded childcare will also be deprived of the employment allowance.

I look forward to hearing from others in this debate about the effect of these changes and their unfairness and perverse impacts on so many sectors.

To conclude, we cannot support the key provisions of the Bill. It is a betrayal—yes, a betrayal—of the promise in the Labour manifesto that all reasonable people interpreted as a commitment not to increase national insurance. The stuff said about “working people’’ does not cut the mustard. Moreover, we know from the OBR that the national insurance changes alone will reduce labour supply by 0.2% and add 0.2% to inflation by 2029-30. Sadly, we are already seeing this in business recruitment plans.

We look forward to carrying out our scrutiny functions effectively as this important Bill progresses. It would be very helpful if the Government could update us with their latest view of the impact of the proposed changes on jobs, wages and prices. We are very much in favour of a proper evaluation of policies in the light of experience, and, accordingly, we will be tabling a proposed new clause requiring the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the NICs increases on the employment rate a year after the passing of the Bill. I know from my time as a Minister that such amendments are routinely resisted by the system but that they can be helpful down the road to a responsible Minister keen to do the right thing.

In short, our position is that, even if the Government thought it was right to raise many billions in taxation, this is the wrong way of doing it. The country will regret it.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Grand Committee

I understand that the Government are hopeful that money from deposits—the free money—will go into UK SMEs. I say to the Minister that I think he is an optimist, as I do not think a lot of it will happen, but we must recognise that, as UK SMEs scale up, they have a high failure rate—it is about 49%—so there is a real impact in fuelling those kinds of investments. We must be careful not to take financial stability for granted but to understand that it requires constant vigilance. If the Minister could help me with those issues, I would be grateful.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to address these three significant pieces of legislation, which collectively aim to refine and enhance the regulation of our financial services sector. The measures come at a pivotal time for not only our financial services industry but the broader economy, as we navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by our post-Brexit regulatory autonomy.

My overall concern is that we are moving too slowly and too modestly to reduce the constraints that existed in the EU regime, and to encourage the competition and dynamism that we need for growth. This means that the US financial services industry and the industry in newer markets, such as Singapore, are eroding our prime position despite our dual advantage of time zone and the English language. Questions have been asked about the effectiveness of our stock market; indeed, that was highlighted today by the reaction to the Canal+ listing in London, which, obviously, we all welcomed. We look forward to debating the reforms announced in the Mansion House speech.

In the light of all this, the instruments demand careful scrutiny. I will also follow the sequence on the Order Paper. The first measure under consideration deals with the supervision and enforcement of designated activities. This legislation builds on the regulatory framework of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, empowering regulators to oversee specific activities that pose systemic or consumer risks. From our perspective, this is a necessary and prudent step. By focusing regulatory attention on designated activities rather than institutions alone, we can ensure that oversight remains targeted and proportionate.

Yet it is vital that this power is exercised judiciously. Overzealous enforcement could stifle innovation and deter smaller players and start-ups from entering the market at all. We would like to see a regulatory approach that provides clarity and certainty, enabling businesses to thrive while protecting consumers and market integrity. We also want to keep compliance costs down for business, especially smaller business. Historically, that has not always been the way of the financial regulators—nor, I am afraid to say, of the Treasury. Does the Minister agree that financial regulation should be more careful about the costs that it imposes? I know from the Mansion House speech that the Chancellor wants to be more competitive; I would like to see that reflected in financial regulation.

Incidentally, I was surprised to see this in paragraph 9.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“The government does not generally assess successful enforcement action—such as fines levied after a breach of rules—as a cost to firms”.


From my experience, enforcement can be very costly to a firm: in legal fees, to fight any unfairness and possible reputational damage; in diversion of management time and talent; and in finding money from tight budgets for any fine. That is a good reason for a firm to comply with the established rules but it is also a reason for our regulators to work hard, in order to make compliance with the law easy, and not to judge themselves on the amount of fines they levy.

There is a related point on which I would very much welcome a response. The Minister may be aware of the huge concerns raised by the financial services sector about the FCA’s proposals earlier this year to name and shame firms involved in FCA enforcement action. It is consulting again, I am glad to say, on modified proposals. Can the Minister say whether the FCA intends to apply these new rules to the persons who are within the designated activities regime, which is at issue today, rather than, or as well as, the authorised persons regime? I know that the Chancellor, like her predecessor, has expressed concerns about naming and shaming. Clearly, we need to tread with great care in this area.

I look forward to hearing the answers to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, about tribunals and speed. I should like to say that her grasp of technical aspects of financial services law is extremely helpful to this Committee in the scrutiny of complex SIs such as these; we owe her a great deal. However, I have to say, I am not sure that I completely agree with her on FCA objectives, as I think that responsible growth and dynamism need also to come through in the way the FCA behaves.

That brings me to the second measure, which addresses short selling—an activity that has long been a point of contention in financial markets. Short selling, when responsibly undertaken, contributes to market liquidity and price discovery, as the Minister explained. Personally, I would have been more radical in moving away from the EU regulation, and perhaps in giving the FCA narrower rule-making powers. However, the proposed regulations seek to establish a robust framework for managing the risks of short selling while preserving its legitimate role, for example in times of crisis; I think that “exceptional circumstances” was the term the Minister used.

Moreover, on public disclosure, I welcome the move to a list of securities that are within the scope of the rules—this is in paragraph 5.11 of the second SI’s Explanatory Memorandum—rather than having a list of shares the FCA considered to be exempt. This will be clearer and easier. However, I urge the Government to ensure that the reporting and compliance burdens on market participants arising from this new instrument remain proportionate. Excessive red tape hinders the competitiveness of our financial markets, and I believe that we still have too much of it.

I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that I, too, have learned a lot from history. She mentioned what I think she called “casino banking” but, as a former bank non-executive director—long after the financial crisis—I can vouch for the thoroughness of the checks that are made on personnel with responsibilities. My only concern is that this might be a less leisurely process because, obviously, personnel changes are often needed to run organisations well.

The third and final measure relates to amendments to the ring-fencing framework established in the wake of the global financial crisis. Ring-fencing was designed to protect retail banking operations from the risks associated with investment banking. Although this principle remains sound, the financial landscape has evolved considerably since the original provisions were enacted.

The proposed amendments rightly seek to introduce greater flexibility into the ring-fencing regime. This is a sensible response to changing market dynamics and the need for regulatory frameworks to evolve. Having said that, I think that increasing the limit from £25 billion to just £35 billion is timid, especially given recent inflation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I would like the Minister to remind the Grand Committee which of our banks will need to be ring-fenced going forward and to name some of those that will escape and be able to grow and diversify, both here and overseas, more easily.

In other respects, I say to the Minister and his officials that the Explanatory Memorandum and de minimis assessment on this instrument were very thorough and helpful.

As Conservatives, we understand the critical importance of maintaining the UK’s status as a global financial hub. This requires not only robust regulatory frameworks but a willingness to adapt and innovate in response to new challenges and opportunities, such as AI. I urge the Government to continue the processes of dealing with retained EU law and of engaging with industry stakeholders in order to ensure that domestic measures are implemented effectively and without unnecessary burdens or delays. In doing so, it should be possible to foster a competitive financial services sector that drives economic growth and innovation, creates jobs and enhances our nation’s global standing.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken—specifically, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe—for their comments and questions and for, as others have observed, the extraordinary level of expertise that they bring to this debate and, as a result, the level of scrutiny that they are able to provide. I apologise for speaking to the instruments in an order other than that on the Order Paper.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, began by focusing on the designated activities SI. She asked about the direction power. The designated activities regime provides a power of direction to the Financial Conduct Authority. The Treasury can, by regulations, switch on that direction power for the Financial Conduct Authority’s supervision of any given designated activity. This statutory instrument sets out additional procedure for how that power may be exercised, but it does not create or switch on the direction power itself.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, also asked for some statistics on the frequency of tribunals. I will write to her on that, as she requested. If she does not mind, I will also write to her on her second question, which was about the differences in the power of direction between CCIs and short selling.

The noble Baroness then went on to focus on the short selling SI. She asked how the views of consumers were considered. These reforms were informed by extensive industry engagement, taking into account views from a wide range of market participants, including consumers. The new UK regime will ensure that the regulation works effectively to protect against the risks of short selling while improving UK competitiveness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Since I am going to write to the noble Baroness on those other two points, it is probably best that I write to her on that one, so that we can be absolutely clear.

In the meantime, I move on to the questions on the ring-fence from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She spoke about a return to casino banking, but she will understand that I disagree with her on that point. These are sensible, technical reforms on which the Treasury has undertaken detailed work with the PRA. The PRA is satisfied that they maintain the appropriate financial stability safeguards. The Treasury has considered the combined overall risk of reforms to the sector, alongside detailed cost-benefit analysis through an impact assessment. That impact assessment concluded that the reforms will improve outcomes for banks and their customers by making the ring-fencing regime more flexible and proportionate, while maintaining appropriate financial stability safeguards and minimising risks to public funds.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville- Rolfe, asked which specific banks will be removed from the ring-fence as a result of these measures. The reforms create significant new optionality for banks, with the eventual benefits depending on their commercial decisions. It is for the banks to announce how they will utilise the new flexibilities created in the regime and the Government do not comment on specific firms.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also asked about firms being taken out of the ring-fence as a result of the primary threshold. No firms will leave the regime as a result of increasing the core deposit threshold.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in contrast to other noble Lords, spoke of these reforms being too slow and modest. She also asked what assessment the Government had done on the impact of these SIs. We published impact assessments alongside both the ring-fencing and short selling statutory instruments, which set out their estimated impacts on firms. Both these statutory instruments are estimated to result in a net cost saving for industry.

The noble Baroness also asked how these SIs will deliver growth. There are several measures in the ring-fencing SI that have an impact on growth. We are increasing the core deposit threshold at which banks become subject to the regime, allowing them to grow, as well as exempting retail-focused banks from the regime. We have also introduced new flexibilities for ring-fenced banks to invest in UK small and medium enterprises. The Short Selling Regulations introduce a streamlined short selling regime, which reduces costs for firms and improves UK competitiveness, while still effectively protecting against the risks of short selling.

The noble Baroness also asked about the powers that the supervision and enforcement statutory instrument provides. Those regulations extend the normal powers that the Financial Conduct Authority already has over designated activities. They will allow the Financial Conduct Authority to supervise designated activities even where those carrying on the activities are not authorised persons. They mean that it will be able to gather information on and launch investigations into persons carrying on designated activities, and to enforce its designated activity rules, by publicly censuring or imposing financial penalties on persons who breach them. The Financial Conduct Authority will also be able to restrict or prohibit persons from carrying on the activity if necessary. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on the broader FCA enforcement approach.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Before the Minister goes on, I want to ask about naming and shaming. Is it to be done at the stage when enforcement becomes public? Can we be clear when the naming and shaming will take place? The Government are still considering exactly what they are going to do on naming and shaming, I think. It would be good to have confirmation on that because this area is of particular concern to the industry, for an obvious reason: the reputational hit of naming and shaming is substantial.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

If there is anything more that I can usefully add, I will include it in the letter that I will write to the noble Baroness.

A final question was asked about why we have increased the limit by just £10 billion. It was recognised when the ring-fencing regime was originally designed that the threshold would need to be adjusted over time to reflect the evolution of banking practices and growth in the deposit base. The Treasury considered several metrics, as well as financial stability and competition considerations, in proposing the £10 billion increase.

Increasing the deposit threshold will provide smaller banks with more headroom to grow before being subject to the requirements and costs of ring-fencing. This will support domestic competition in the retail banking market. A competitive and dynamic market improves outcomes for depositors. The reforms may also encourage inward investment in the UK, as new entrants to the UK banking market will have more room to grow and develop economies of scale before becoming subject to the regime.

I hope that I have covered all noble Lords’ questions. As I say, I will write on the points that I indicated.

Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

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.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support for the compensation scheme order.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked whether this SI was genuinely needed. In terms of the specifics, I can assure her that I would not be standing here if it was not, but I will write to her about the hypothetical that she raises.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for the points that she made. I agree very much with what she said about the importance of the action that was taken. She asked whether we have learned the lessons from that for future regulation. I point to the bank resolution Bill that I have just taken through the House. It is absolutely informed by the experience of the Silicon Valley Bank episode and directly flows from it.

The noble Baroness also asked how this order relates to the growth agenda. As I always say, stability is the first pillar of the growth agenda. Financial stability is as important as economic stability and I believe that this order will help to ensure financial stability as that platform for growth. With that, I commend it to the Committee.