Strategic Priorities Statement: Defence

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will absolutely pass that on to the Chancellor.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, defence is the single most important activity of the state, and it is therefore unfortunate that many ESG funds have excluded investment in defence stocks, hitting our innovative UK companies. Does the Minister agree that the rebranded National Wealth Fund must lead the way more clearly and work with private sector funds to spur significant investment in the UK defence sector, as well as in other priority areas?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do agree with that, because the noble Baroness described exactly what the National Wealth Fund is there to do: to work closely with the private sector to catalyse more private sector investment in industries that we consider to be priority sectors. As the rest of this Question has shown, defence is very much one of those priority sectors.2

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

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

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, it is with some regret that I do not insist on my Amendment 8 and its consequential amendments. I am disappointed that financial privilege has been invoked to prevent a full and proper debate in the other place on the potential damaging impact that reducing the class 2 secondary threshold by a brutal 45% will have on jobs and growth for small businesses and organisations employing fewer than 25 staff. I fear the Government will look back on 6 April, the day the new NICs regime kicks in, as a day of economic self-harm—a second April Fools’ Day, if you like.

I do propose to move Amendment 8B in lieu. In the spirit of pragmatism, my amendment, like that from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, would simply bestow on the Treasury the power—through statutory instrument—to specify exemptions on the lowering of secondary class 1 thresholds for businesses, charities and, indeed, all organisations employing fewer than 25 people. We are talking about 10 million jobs across the UK that are not protected by Clause 3’s increase in the employment allowance, which offsets the NICs increases but, typically, only for those employing three or fewer staff. Given the potential damage to employment, wages and growth, why would the Government not want this weapon in their armoury in what will be a very difficult year ahead for small employers, who also face close to 7% increases in the national minimum wage and added compliance costs with the new Employment Rights Bill?

I support Amendments 1B and 5B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, which strike me as an entirely sensible and pragmatic exemption tool to give to the Treasury given the very challenging circumstances facing care homes, hospices, pharmacies and other primary care providers.

Finally, I also support Amendment 21B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seeks a review of the impact of NICs increases by sector. The impact note that came with the Bill was extraordinarily light on detail, especially when you consider that the Bill commits employers across these sectors to more than £5 billion per annum in additional NICs and impacts more than 10 million jobs.

I asked the Minister in Committee how many jobs in each sector would be impacted by the increase in NICs—a fairly basic question, one could argue, and yet no answer has been forthcoming. We heard on Report that such assessments would be

“econometrically impossible”.—[Official Report, 25/2/25; col. 1672.]

I respectfully disagree. We are asking for sectoral impact assessments that cover such key issues as the number of jobs impacted and the impact on vacancies, job creation, redundancies, labour activity and output, and wages. It was an entirely reasonable request and one the Treasury should readily embrace.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group, including my Amendment 21B, address the very real negative impact of this jobs tax that the Government refuse to acknowledge. The Bill is the most important economic measure they have put forward so far and it makes significant changes to millions of businesses and social enterprises on a very short timescale. These businesses have raised concerns that are reflected in a flat-lining of growth, as worried owners seek to anticipate such a brutal change. Noble Lords from across the House have raised the consequences a number of times, yet the Government remain unreceptive.

At every stage of this Bill’s progression, we have raised the concerns of the healthcare sector about the effects on care homes, pharmacies, dentists, GP surgeries and hospices. It will have a real impact on people’s lives. I am particularly concerned about the hospice sector. The recent extra funding provided is capital funding and will not support day-to-day functions. Hospice UK has reported that the burden of the increase in employer NICs will be £44.3 million a year, which will not be covered by the £26 million of revenue funding for children and young people’s hospices, previously mentioned by the Minister. Last year, children’s hospices were provided with £25 million through the children and young people’s hospice grant. Can the Minister tell us how much of his £26 million is additional funding and how much is in fact recurring?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As I have outlined, the measures contained in this Bill are necessary to repair the public finances, to rebuild public services, to protect working people and to invest in Britain. This includes an historic investment of an additional £25.7 billion for the NHS that is helping to bring down waiting lists more quickly and puts an end to over a decade of underinvestment and neglect. In doing so, the Government have kept their promise to working people to not increase their income tax, their national insurance or their VAT. We have always acknowledged that there are costs to responsibility, but the cost of irresponsibility would have been far greater.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the impact of the Bill on hospices. The Government of course recognise the vital role that hospices play in supporting people at the end of life and their families, and the cost pressures that the hospice sector has been facing over many years. That is why, as several noble Lords have mentioned, we are supporting the sector with a £100 million increase for adult and children’s hospices to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care, and £26 million revenue funding to support children’s and young people’s hospices. All charities, including hospices set up as charities, can also benefit from the employment allowance, which this Bill more than doubles from £5,000 to £10,500.

On assessments, as I have said previously, the Government and the OBR have already outlined the impacts of this policy change. This approach is in line with previous changes to national insurance and previous similar changes to taxation; the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments.

The revenue raised from the measures in this Bill will play a critical role in repairing the public finances and rebuilding our public services. Any future changes which exempt certain groups would have cost implications, necessitating higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. For these reasons and the other reasons that I have already set out, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their Motions containing Amendments 1B, 5B, 8B and 21B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion B, I will speak also to Motions C, D, F, G and J to V. The other place has disagreed to Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 and Amendments 9 to 20, as they interfere with public revenue. The other place did not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason is sufficient. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords are content not to insist on Amendments 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 to 20. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 21B in lieu—

21B: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of effect on certain sectors
(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on the persons and sectors in subsection (2).
(2) The review must consider the impact on—
(a) charities with annual revenue of less than £1 million;
(b) early years providers;
(c) hospices;
(d) the hospitality sector;
(e) pharmacies;
(f) small businesses;
(g) social care;
(h) transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities.””

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion W1 and to test the opinion of the House.

Closed-Ended Investment Companies: Cost Disclosure

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I do share the noble Baroness’s concern, which is exactly why we have done all the things that I have set out so far in this Answer. The Government’s policy regarding saving is that we think it is a good thing and we want to encourage more of it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the most important objective in the savings area is to ensure that sufficient investment opportunities are available, whatever their nature, to allow and encourage UK investors to save and invest, especially in UK stocks? Will he outline how the Government intend to support products that facilitate private investment in important areas such as property and infrastructure, as closed-ended funds are generally well suited to that?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. What she is saying is right; the Government share her view. That is exactly why the Chancellor established the pensions review, for example, in her recent Mansion House speech. Her view is that the pensions review could unlock billions of pounds in additional investment in fast-growing businesses and infrastructure while improving outcome for savers. That is exactly the objective of that policy.

Finance Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I start with a note of regret that participants in this vital debate are given an advisory time of only five minutes. As the Official Opposition’s spokesman, I can speak for a little longer, but the time set aside seems inadequate to deal with all stages of such an important Bill—especially on top of consigning the national insurance contributions Bill to the Moses Room. We have distinguished economic and financial experts in this House, and we should make it easier to hear from them in prime time. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Caine of Kentish Town, and to welcoming her to their number.

It seems a long time since the Chancellor delivered her Budget and James Murray, the Exchequer Secretary, introduced the Bill in the other place. At that time, the Chancellor was destroying morale and animal spirits by talking the economy down, and then bashing business with the highest tax burden in the history of our country. Now, growth is flatlining—as we predicted—and the legacy of fragility lives on, with 10-year bond rates currently at 4.6%.

I have some sympathy for the Minister, as it was necessary to deal with the challenges facing the country—not least improving productivity, which is the long-term way to sustainable growth. That also means tackling the public sector, which the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has shown the determination to do, not least with the abolition of NHS England and the multiple tiers of staffing that he hopes to tackle.

The worst and biggest mistake in the Budget was the hike in national insurance—the jobs tax—especially the lowering of the threshold, not least because it will not deliver the hoped-for savings. The OBR has said that by 2029-30, the annual yield from these NIC increases will be slashed by nearly £10 billion through the job cuts and lower nominal wages these measures will inflict. Moreover, a further £5 billion a year will be needed to compensate public service employers. We will come back to these issues at ping-pong next week.

The second mistake, which will hit entrepreneurs, family businesses and the farming community, is the class-driven raid on IHT—the family farms tax. We look forward to hearing the results of the consultation and hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, the new chair of the Economic Affairs Committee, will follow convention and arrange a sub-committee to look at the changes before the details are finalised.

The third mistake is the ideologically driven tax grab on private schools—the education tax. The Bill introduces the first-ever tax on education, and I will major on this because it is provided for in the Bill before us. The Minister has also done so, albeit from a different perspective. Since 1 January 2025, all education, boarding and vocational training provided by private schools in the UK has been subject to VAT at the standard rate of 20%. Alongside this, the Government are removing charitable business rates relief for independent schools in England, meaning they will, for the first time, face the additional burden of local business taxes from April 2025.

To be clear, this is a new, punitive tax on education. Its imposition part-way through the academic year will cause—and has already caused—significant disruption to the education of thousands of children. It harms parents on modest incomes who have worked hard to send their children to the school they believe is best suited to them, and will make independent schools unaffordable for military families, who make the greatest sacrifice by serving in our Armed Forces.

Most of all, the Government’s education taxes will have a disastrous impact on pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, especially on those in independent and state schools who lack education, health and care plans. Over 100,000 children with special needs—many of whom are in independent schools—will be hit. The Government have acknowledged that the policy will have a “disruptive impact” on pupils with SEND, potentially forcing them out of their schools as fees become unaffordable, which will overwhelm the state-funded system and burden local authorities with a surge in EHCP applications.

Ultimately, this tax on education could, according to the Adam Smith Institute, cost the taxpayer £1.6 billion a year if it forces a quarter of pupils into the state sector. This policy is a direct attack on aspiration. It punishes those who have worked hard to succeed and we will only begin to see the real damage at the start of the next academic year. Parents will deprive themselves of much to avoid taking a child out of school during the year, but, in the autumn, hard-pressed parents will in many cases have no choice but to remove their children from private education.

The Government have also broken their manifesto promises with the Budget and the Finance Bill. Their pledge was:

“We will ensure taxes on working people are kept as low as possible”.


Yet, they have increased the tax burden to a historic high of 38.2% by 2029-30.

Rather than creating an environment that promotes investment and growth, the Bill makes our tax system less competitive. It abolishes the remittance basis of taxation for non-domiciled individuals and raises the main rates of capital gains tax—from 10% to 20%, and from 18% to 24%, respectively. It reduces investor relief and increases stamp duty.

These measures do not lay the foundations for the growth we need; they erode the incentives for businesses to invest and create jobs in the UK. We are seeing the consequences. More than 10,000 millionaires left Britain last year, up from 4,200 in 2023. With his growth hat on, can the Minister confirm how the Government will ensure that the UK remains an attractive place to work and invest in? What has happened to the enterprise economy?

The Government made another promise. They said:

“The dream of homeownership is now out of reach for too many young people”,


and vowed to

“support first-time buyers who struggle to save for a large deposit”.

However, once again, the promises have been broken. Millions of young people have now learned that those were empty words.

The Government have confirmed that stamp duty relief for first-time buyers will be slashed this month. This means that first-time buyers purchasing homes worth over £300,000 will pay thousands more in tax under this Budget. Rents will also be pushed higher as a result of this stamp duty hike, as stated by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. This will further squeeze young people, who are already struggling to make ends meet. It is plainly clear: the Government are not prioritising the future of young people as they should.

The Bill also perpetuates the Government’s flawed energy policy, which fails to prioritise our energy security. It increases the energy profits levy to 38%, bringing the headline rate on oil and gas activities to 78%, and extends that rate for another year, removing investment allowances.

The real-world consequences of this ideological policy are dire. Offshore Energies UK has warned that the change will stifle investment and put 35,000 jobs at risk. If investment falls—the OBR concludes that capital expenditure will be down 26% over the forecast period—the country will become more dependent on imported energy. This will not only compromise the UK’s energy security but expose consumers to price fluctuations, leaving them vulnerable to global supply disruptions.

The Government are relying on the levy to help fund GB Energy and support the transition to clean power. However, if investment in UK oil and gas declines, the revenue generated by the levy will diminish, eroding the very schemes that they claim will create a “green energy superpower”. We should be maximising our homegrown energy, not undermining domestic production.

There are three other points that I hope the Minister may be able to clear up. First, what are the Government’s plans for the digital services tax, particularly in the light of adverse comments from Washington about the future of the tax in any trade deal? I was in favour of the introduction of the tax as a means of reducing the discrimination against physical retail that has been so damaging to our high streets. Any reassurance would be most welcome.

Secondly, the Government acknowledged that the transitional provisions for remittance by non-doms were faulty and helpfully tabled an amendment in the other place, now paragraph 6 of Schedule 9. However, I have been advised by the Chartered Institute of Taxation that this is also defective, so that, for example, individuals who brought money into the UK to buy a house several years ago would now face a big retrospective tax charge. To stop yet further departures from the UK to avoid such perverse effects, could the Minister make a statement that the Government recognise the issue and commit to a further amendment in the next Finance Bill?

Thirdly, and this is important, will the Minister repeat the Chancellor’s commitment that the Government will not extend the freeze of income tax and national insurance contribution thresholds beyond April 2028?

I conclude by reminding the House that the Government inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, with inflation under control, unemployment halved and the deficit reduced, yet the measures in the Bill do nothing to boost growth or to secure our stable future. The combination of the jobs tax, the family farms tax and the education tax has devastated business confidence, put the future of British farming in jeopardy and is disrupting the education of hundreds of thousands of children. This was a Budget that failed to rebuild the foundations of our nation, as promised. It does not deliver the economic growth that we need. It does quite the opposite. The Government pledged that their prime mission would be to boost economic growth. Instead, they have consistently talked down the British economy and growth has evaporated. Ministers must act in the Spring Statement next week to correct the mistakes they made and put the British economy back on track.

Independent School Fees: VAT

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. As I have said, the continuity of education allowance is designed to provide clearly defined financial support to ensure that the need for frequent mobility, often involving overseas postings, does not interfere with the education of the children involved.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, VAT on independent school fees is an unpleasant, class-based change of the kind sometimes adopted by the party opposite. This increased private school fees by 12.7% this January, according to the ONS. We will debate this matter next week with the Finance Bill, but does the Minister not feel rather embarrassed that his Government are the first one to tax education?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

If the noble Baroness wants to talk about what she is embarrassed about, I am very happy to talk about the previous Government’s record over the past 14 years. This was a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including for the 94% of pupils who are in the state sector.

Capital Investment and Share Ownership

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As the noble Lord describes, there have of course been positive examples of PFI projects. For example, more than 100 hospitals were built by the previous Labour Government’s PPP programme. The Government are absolutely committed to harnessing private investment and restoring growth. On the latter part of his question, as I said before, the 10-year infrastructure strategy will be the point at which we set out the Government’s view of that, and it will be published alongside the spending review in June.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we should be wary, not least because of the experience with PPI in things such as schools and hospitals, which several noble Lords have mentioned, about the establishment of public/private partnerships? Can I encourage him to be a little more forthcoming? What does he see as the risks? How will the Government assess value for money for the new schemes, perhaps with the help of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which he mentioned, whose work I respect?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am afraid the noble Baroness cannot encourage me to be more forthcoming. As I have said, the 10-year infrastructure strategy will be the point at which we set out the Government’s approach to private investment in infrastructure. I think she will agree with me that private investment is vital for the country’s infrastructure. The Chancellor has established the British Infrastructure Taskforce, made up of some of the UK’s biggest financial companies. That will support the Government’s infrastructure goal and ensure that the strategy is credible and deliverable.

Carbon Border Taxes

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very tempted to agree with my noble friend. I think that what he says is absolutely the case.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, UK energy prices are far too high, notably for industrial uses such as steel, cement and ceramics, and for manufacturing, which are vital to the UK economy. Does the Minister agree that the arrangements for a carbon tax here and any border mechanisms must always be considered against the need to reduce energy costs for users and, as has been foreshadowed, to keep prices down, especially for hard-pressed consumers?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes—I agree with the noble Baroness that energy prices are too high. I just wonder what the previous Government did to tackle that over 14 years. This Government have invested in CCUS, for example, which the previous Government did not. I do not know whether the noble Baroness agrees with our investments in that; she opposes the revenue-raising measures that we have taken to raise the funds to invest in those measures. It is an interesting question, but I of course agree with her. That is why the tax is designed in exactly the way that it is.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am concluding for the Opposition on this amendment. We are content with the amendment, which we see as a technical, tidying-up amendment.

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

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, seeks to make a minor adjustment to the Bill to more accurately define care workers in Scotland. While the amendment does not change the fundamental principles or objectives of the Bill, it enhances the clarity and precision of the text. I am therefore happy to accept this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, in concluding for the Opposition, I thank the many Peers on my Benches who have made valuable contributions during the Bill’s passage. I cannot thank them all today as the list is too long but I thank particularly my noble friend Lord Altrincham—my comrade in arms—and our opposition research team.

I also thank noble Lords from across the House, because this has been a cross-party effort, reflecting the widespread damage this Bill will cause. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for his amendments to protect small business, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her amendments on health and social care, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her support across the board, including for the amendment calling for a review of the impact of the Bill.

I will say a couple of things. We have consistently heard that this is a job tax, plain and simple. It is the most important economic measure the Government have introduced so far, and it will have wide-reaching damaging impacts across the whole economy. It is being brought in on a tight timescale, creating a cliff edge on 6 April with no staggering for those who may be hurt. It has not been accompanied by an adequate impact note. It has led to businesses losing confidence in the Government, and that, I believe, is very bad for growth, of which I am very supportive. Despite the Minister’s protests, Peers from all Benches have agreed that the short document the Government call an impact note is an affront to the House, and that the Government have failed to provide sufficient sectoral information to allow for the effective scrutiny we try to bring. That is why we must have the review of the impact on affected sectors.

Despite the importance of these measures, the Government have made no effort to engage constructively. This House therefore voted to exempt small charities, transport providers for children with special educational needs and disabilities, early years providers and, as I have already said, small businesses and health and social care providers that provide public services in the private sector.

Of course we understand that taxes should be simple, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has explained, but when the Government fail to recognise the egregious impact this Bill will have on real people, we believe that some rethinking is necessary. Some of our changes would be modest in cost terms, but I know they would earn the thanks of many right across society.

I end by encouraging the noble Lord to use all his charms to persuade the Chancellor to think again.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I once again thank all noble Lords for their efforts on this Bill. I beg to move.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth for his work on salmon, highlighted in Amendments 2 and 2A, and the Minister for the response he set out at the beginning of these proceedings. As we know, genetically modified escapees infect wild migratory fish with sea lice and disease and interbreed with wild populations. Worldwide, salmon farms have led to significant environmental damage and pose a real risk to other species. We increasingly see recognition of this. Various standards for fish farming have been introduced, and countries such as Australia and Denmark have banned the practice.

We support the sustainable farming of wild Atlantic salmon or other fish species. However, that must not come at the expense of wild populations. We acknowledge that the Bill is relevant to only one existing salmon farm, and that the main problem is in Scotland, which is devolved. Given the comments of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I hope that the Minister will make it clear whether the audit envisaged by the Government will also be relevant to improving things in Scotland, which have been highlighted in our discussions.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Forgive me if this point has already been made, but, on this idea that this is only about Scottish salmon, it is crucial that people understand that all the salmon migrate to the Arctic waters in the far-north North Sea. Therefore, English salmon are having to go past this environmental disaster in Scotland. It is very pertinent to England, and to suggest that there is only one salmon farm in these territorial waters is to miss the point about the most threatened example of the Atlantic salmon, which are those that come from English and Welsh rivers.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I very much take my noble friend’s point. I was thinking, in clarification, that problems in Scotland would be addressed by the measure that the Minister has very helpfully brought forward today, so that this is looked at in the round wherever the salmon may be. I think that my noble friend and I are at one about this.

Government Amendment 1 seeks to restrict the permanent disposal of interest in the seabed. It would ensure that the commissioners may not dispose of the seabed without the consent of the Treasury. In Committee and on Report, noble Lords across the House, including, as has been said, my noble friends Lord Holmes of Richmond and Lady Vere of Norbiton, raised concerns about the disposal of the Crown Estate’s assets and emphasised the duty of the commissioners to protect the seabed. As stewards of our seabed, the Crown Estate and its commissioners bear a profound and unique responsibility to ensure its protection. It is not merely an asset; it is actually the foundation of our oceans and a vital natural resource that supports marine life and holds cultural and ecological significance. In a spirit of compromise, we can accept the Government’s amendment and reformulation.

In conclusion, I warmly thank the Minister for his efforts to meet our concerns on the Bill. That includes what he has not mentioned, the important 25% cap on borrowing that will be in the framework document, and it includes the agreement on pre-appointment scrutiny. I thank all noble Lords across the House—it has been a cross-party effort—who have taken part in the scrutiny of the Bill. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean again for his persistence in this matter, and success. Above all, I thank my predecessor and noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton, and my noble friend Lord Roborough, for their work on the Bill.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for what he said and his agreement on the way forward. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, knows, the Crown Estate is devolved to Scotland, so the measures I have set out will not apply to Scotland and I cannot ensure that they will.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as the Crown Estate is not devolved to Wales, the audit that the Crown Estate will conduct will apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, I do not believe that there is a salmon farm in Wales, so I do not know whether the audit will apply, but, clearly, all salmon farms on Crown Estate land in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be looked at.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, the outcome of the audit will be set out in the Crown Estate’s annual report, which will be published in June, giving an opportunity for scrutiny. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in terms of the seabed, the Crown Estate is limited to 150-year leases.

I am glad that we have been able to agree to the changes made by the other place to this Bill. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their efforts on the Bill since last July.

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

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for the measures I outlined.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked some questions about the National Insurance Fund and the review. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also touched on the Government Actuary’s Department report and the National Insurance Fund. The next quinquennial review of the fund will provide an update of these longer-term issues and projections over the period starting April 2025, so perhaps we will return to debate some of these issues at that point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also talked about reform of the welfare system. She will know that we are coming forward very shortly with a Green Paper to achieve exactly the things that she set out. I know we tend to be less political in this Room, but I will say that they were in power for 14 years and did not do those things. However, I hope that we will be doing those things very shortly to ensure that the welfare system incentivises work in the way the noble Baroness described.

I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their support of the extension of the veterans’ relief, which I totally acknowledge the previous Government introduced. The relief is part of the Government’s commitment to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran. It is intended to further incentivise employers to take advantage of the wide range of skills and experience that ex-military personnel offer. I totally take the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made: you see homeless veterans across London and the transport network, and of course we need to do more work across government to support them in their efforts to get back into work and to eliminate that homelessness.

Finally, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, around CPI for child benefit. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in the previous debate very eloquently made the point that some of those smaller upratings compound previous upratings when CPI has been so much higher. I echo the words she said. I hope I have covered the points made by both noble Baronesses.