Autumn Budget 2024

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a long debate today, where, as usual, your Lordships’ House has brought its considerable expertise to bear, dissecting last month’s Budget. Not least, the eloquent maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Booth-Smith demonstrated the value that he will undoubtedly bring to this House. I shall try not to delay us much further, but the large number of speakers that we have had is befitting of a Budget with such large sums involved.

It has been the largest tax-raising Budget in history, with the tax burden now at a historic high. There will be an additional £142 billion of borrowing over the forecast, with debt interest payments of £100 billion every single year—all to fund an additional £70 billion of spending, on average, every year.

The Minister has tried to claim that Labour has a mandate for this Budget, but it does not. And what is the result of these decisions? Lower wages and lower living standards, lower growth and lower private investment, and higher inflation and higher interest rates. People’s bills will go up and their wages will go down.

I turn first to tax. Before the election, the Chancellor promised people that Labour’s policies would be

“fully funded and fully costed—no ifs, no ands, no buts”.

Just last month, the Prime Minister made an absolute commitment to not raise taxes on working people. When the former Prime Minister, my right honourable friend Rishi Sunak, told people that Labour would raise their taxes by £2,000 over the next Parliament, Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer said he was lying. To be fair, he did get the figure wrong: it was not £2,000 over the course of the next Parliament but £2,000 every single year.

The Government continue to not be straight with people now, claiming that the £25 billion rise in national insurance is not a tax on working people. National insurance is literally the only major tax that exclusively hits working people. If noble Lords do not believe me, ask the Chancellor, who said the problem with national insurance was that

“it is a tax purely on people who go to work and those who employ them”.

If, understandably, noble Lords do not quite trust the Chancellor on this after October’s Budget, how about the Resolution Foundation, which has said that national insurance is a tax on jobs? Meanwhile, the IFS has described it as a straightforward breach of a manifesto commitment. I know that those in the party opposite will not take any advice from these Benches, but perhaps they will listen to Paul Johnson of the IFS, who said:

“The continued pretence that these changes will not affect working people risks further undermining trust”.


However, the problem with this Budget is not just the scale of the tax rises but the choices they have made. By reducing the threshold at which employers pay national insurance, they have increased proportionately the cost of employers employing workers at lower wages the most, making it more expensive to take on entry-level workers and to employ people part time. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, set out eloquently the wider impacts of this change. Can it really be the right decision at a time when one of the biggest challenges for this Government is to support people off benefits and into work?

As many noble Lords have pointed out—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Thornton, Lady Tyler and Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs, among others—nor does it seem that the Government have thought through the impact of an increase on this scale when it comes to their other policy commitments. GPs, care homes, nurseries: the Government are asking them all to deliver more, but with the national insurance rise they are making it harder and more expensive for them to employ the people they need to do it.

Combined with Labour’s £5 billion bill for its employment rights legislation, the change further increases the incentive for self-employment, distorting people’s decisions in the labour market and taking them out of employee protections, employee benefits and the pensions system, and I am not sure that is something that people on the Benches opposite want to see.

What about other taxes? The tax on family farms makes it impossible for family farms to be passed on to the next generation and threatens the position of tenant farmers. I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the strength of feeling, and the strength of the arguments made, in this House today on that issue.

A tax on family businesses, just at a time when Labour claims it wants to encourage investment and long-term stewardship, means it is making it harder for the very kinds of businesses that often take this the most seriously. There are higher taxes specifically for first-time buyers, who find it hardest to move on to the housing ladder, and further increases in stamp duty, which the IFS has warned will drive up rents. There are taxes on education and on savings. As the former Prime Minister said during the election campaign, “You name it, they’ll tax it”.

The noble Lord, Lord Desai, had some ideas to add to this further and, with the Labour Party’s new approach to taxation, maybe he will be welcomed back on to its Benches some time soon.

I turn next to borrowing. Before the election, the Chancellor promised she would not

“fiddle the figures or make something different to get better results. We will use the same models the government uses”—

referring to public sector net debt. But changing the measure of debt used in the new fiscal rules is a multibillion-pound fiddle.

We have heard in the debate today, from both sides, the case for more investment in our economy. I agree, but there are still choices to be made in where that investment comes from and how to make sure that it delivers growth. On the first point, the last Government took action to promote higher investment from the private sector, for example through the introduction of full expensing. Under this Government, the OBR predicts not only that private sector investment will fall over the forecast period but that it will fall by even more than the amount of extra investment caused by public investment going up.

This brings me to my second point. As my noble friend Lord Lamont and others pointed out, we need to be really clear-sighted that investment is not an end in itself. The test is: does it lead to greater economic growth? There is very little in this Budget to give us confidence that it does. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady Finn pointed out, areas such as transport are being cut, where you would expect to see higher levels of investment if you were focused on growth.

The scope for waste and inefficiency with this additional spending is significant. The Government have reassured us that this will not happen because they are establishing a new office for value for money. As my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has said, if you need an office for value for money, what is happening across the rest of government? Surely, value for money needs to be built in to how all public money is spent.

This brings us to another challenge that the Chancellor may face with her new measure of debt: its volatility. With such little headroom against her fiscal rules already, small changes such as increases in borrowing costs or the threat of tariffs from a major trading partner could easily blow her off course. That would lead us back to the worst of all worlds of stop-start investment, driving up costs and undermining confidence from private investment.

Record taxes and record borrowing lead us to record levels of spending. The challenge is to make sure that additional spending is not simply going to be absorbed by higher wages but drives reform in the public sector. But I am afraid that, after less than 20 weeks in office, we have already seen Labour’s tax record and it does not look good. It has cancelled plans to reduce the Civil Service to pre-pandemic levels, increased the salaries of train drivers by £10,000 and given junior doctors a 22% pay rise, all without asking for a single productivity improvement in return, and all while removing the winter fuel payment from three-quarters of a million pensioners on low incomes.

The incredible front-loading of the additional planned spending will make it incredibly difficult for the Government to spend effectively, but the Chancellor has promised that she is not coming back for more. But what about the commitment to grow defence spending to 2.5% of GDP? As we have heard in this debate, we live in a more dangerous and uncertain world than ever. What about the commitment to restore aid spending to 0.7% of GNI? This was called for by the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Oates, and also committed to in the manifesto of the party opposite. What about the commitment to fully decarbonise the grid in just six years’ time—a commitment that has been estimated as needing £40 billion of investment a year to deliver? Perhaps the Chancellor is keeping her fingers crossed that improved economic growth will ride to the rescue. I hope, for not just the Chancellor but the country, that this will be the case. But the OBR is not so sure. It forecasts growth down, investment down, inflation up, interest rates up and living standards down.

The Minister will doubtless say in his winding-up speech that these are Labour’s choices and it stands by them. But I would say to the noble Lord, and to all noble Lords opposite, that these were not Labour’s choices to make. They were choices that it should have put to people at the general election. But Labour did not trust people to make up their own minds and, in return, I doubt, after this Budget, that the public will put their trust in this Government for very much longer.

Budget: Taxes and Borrowing

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Penn]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Budget on levels of taxes and Government borrowing.

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

My Lords, the Budget raises taxes by £40 billion as we repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. Borrowing falls from 4.5% of GDP this year to 2.1% of GDP by the end of the forecast. The current budget moves into surplus from 2027-28, ensuring that we do not borrow to fund day-to-day spending.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, after delivering the biggest tax-raising Budget on record, the Chancellor rightly said at the weekend that she was wrong to rule out those tax rises ahead of the election. She also said that this Budget

“wiped the slate clean … set the spending envelope for the remainder of this Parliament”,

and that

“we don’t need to increase taxes further”.

Will the Minister repeat the Chancellor’s reassurances today and rule out any further tax rises in future Budgets, or should we not believe what the Chancellor has said this time round either?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We had to take some very difficult decisions in the Budget. They were the right decisions to clear up the mess that we inherited from the party opposite, to rebuild the NHS after years of neglect, to choose investment and not decline, and to keep our promises to working people. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right and of course I agree with what the Chancellor said. This was a very significant Budget, because of the need to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services simultaneously. We have now wiped the slate clean, meaning we never have to do a Budget like this again. The noble Baroness asks about tax, and I point out that we have kept every single promise that we made on tax. Her Government, when she was a Treasury Minister, froze income tax thresholds, costing working people nearly £30 billion. We could have extended that but we chose not to.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his role. I am sure he will bring the same intellect and consideration to the Government Benches as he did in opposition.

My right honourable friend the shadow Chancellor set out clearly yesterday why the Statement we are debating today is nothing more than a political ploy by the Government to lay the ground for tax rises that Labour was not honest about during the election. He asked the Chancellor several important questions and I listened very carefully to her failure to answer them. So it is welcome that the Minister is here today to give things another go.

First, will the Minister confirm to the House that, since January, in line with constitutional convention, the Chancellor had meetings with the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury? Will the Minister tell the House whether they discussed the public finances, including any of the pressures included in yesterday’s Statement? If so, why are we hearing about the response to those only after the election, during which the Government promised no new tax rises?

Secondly, we are just three months into the financial year. Can the Minister confirm that, at the start of the year, the Treasury had a reserve of £14 billion for unexpected revenue costs and £4 billion for unexpected capital costs? Can he explain why yesterday’s Statement did not account for the Treasury’s ability to manage down in-year pressures on the reserve by £9 billion last year alone? Why did it apparently not account for underspends typically of £12 billion a year?

Will the Minister further confirm whether the Government have abandoned the £12 billion of welfare savings planned by the last Government? That is apart from yesterday’s announcement of a cut to the winter fuel allowance. The Chancellor yesterday admitted she was well aware that take-up of pension credit was woefully low; therefore, can the Minister tell this House how many pensioners living in poverty will now have their winter fuel allowance taken away from them? Can the Minister also confirm whether the Chancellor has abandoned £20 billion of annual productivity savings planned by the last Government, and if not, why they were not in the numbers published yesterday?

Thirdly and importantly, just five days ago the Chancellor presented to Parliament the Government’s estimates for their spending plans this year. Yesterday, my right honourable friend the shadow Chancellor wrote to the Cabinet Secretary with questions on the difference between the figures the Chancellor asked MPs to approve last week and the document she presented yesterday. Perhaps the Minister can speed up the process by answering them today? Can the Minister confirm that senior civil servants signed off on the main estimates and that they were presented in good faith? Can he explain why is there a difference between the plans signed off by senior civil servants in estimates and plans presented yesterday by the Chancellor? If the estimates are wrong, will accounting officers be sanctioned for signing off departmental spending plans for this year which are based on a forecast of requirements that is incorrect?

The Government have also not been straight about their economic inheritance. When BBC Verify asked a professor at the London School of Economics about the claim that Labour had inherited,

“the worst set of economic circumstances”

since the Second World War, he responded:

“I struggle to find a metric that would make that statement correct”.


In fact, the metrics speak for themselves: inflation is 2% today—nearly half what it was in 2010; unemployment is nearly half what it was then, with more new jobs than nearly anywhere else in Europe. So far this year, we are the fastest-growing G7 economy, and over the next six years the IMF says we will grow faster than France, Italy, Germany and Japan. In addition, the forecast deficit today is 4.4%, compared to 10.3% when Labour was last in office.

Every Chancellor faces pressures on public finances, and after a pandemic and an energy crisis those pressures are particularly challenging. That is why, in autumn 2022, the previous Government took painful but necessary decisions on tax and spend. We knew that, if we continued to take difficult decisions on pay, productivity and welfare reform, we could live within our means and start to bring taxes down. On the other hand, Labour ran a campaign knowing that, in government, it would duck those difficult decisions. In just 24 days, the Government have announced £7.3 billion for GB Energy, £8.3 billion for the national wealth fund and around £10 billion for public sector pay awards. That is £24 billion in 24 days—£1 billion for every day the Chancellor has been in office—leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab.

Will the Minister confirm that around half of yesterday’s supposed black hole comes from discretionary public sector pay awards—in other words, not something that the Government have to do, but something on which they have a choice? In accepting those recommendations, was the Chancellor advised by officials to ask unions for productivity enhancements before accepting above-inflation pay awards to help to pay for those awards, as the last Government did? If she was advised to do that, why did she reject that advice? Can the Minister reassure the House on another promise the Chancellor made, on her fiscal rules? Can he confirm that, in order to pay for the Government’s public sector spending plans, the Chancellor will not change her fiscal rules to target a different debt measure so that she can increase borrowing and debt by the back door?

The difference between yesterday’s Statement and 2010 is that, when the Conservatives came to office, we were honest about our plans, saying straightforwardly that we would need to cut the deficit. The party opposite has just won an election promising over 50 times that it has no plans to raise taxes. Yesterday was simply a political exercise to lay the ground for breaking that promise.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, in the debate on the economy following the King’s Speech, I particularly noticed the speeches made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Vere, and the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in which they lauded the state of the economy that the Conservatives were handing over. I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, back to her place on the Conservative Front Bench, but I have just heard a repeat of exactly the same. I find myself thinking today, as I thought back then, how out of touch can the Conservative Party be? Ordinary folk are seriously struggling with the cost of living; businesses are short of workforce and facing costs and barriers to trade with Europe, our major market; productivity and business investment are both stagnant; public debt and taxes are at record highs; and public services are in as dire a crisis as I can ever remember.

My party recognises that the new Government face a huge challenge to deliver both fiscal stability and economic growth, but like my colleagues in the Commons, I ask the Government whether they will give significant priority to the NHS and social care. The two are totally intertwined. It is not just a case of humanity; thousands of people who are trapped in ill health or overwhelmed by caring responsibilities are the potential workforce who could change our economy. I was very sad to hear of a further delay in the introduction of the Dilnot cap, but, frankly, I never had any confidence that a Conservative Government, had they followed the election, would ever have implemented it. However, that nettle has got to be grasped, and I very much hope we will soon hear that there is at least going to be a royal commission to get some final answers to what is an absolutely fundamental ulcer in the health of our overall economy and civil society.

During the election, my party pointed out that there are potential sources of funding: restoring the levy on the big banks, a windfall tax on oil and gas giants without huge loopholes and a fair tax on the online and tech giants are simple examples. There are ways to look at the broader shoulders in order to meet some of those funding gaps. Moreover, infrastructure cannot be neglected. I ask the Government, even if a particular transport or green project—I give those as examples—cannot lever in private funds directly, but on the other hand has the potential to release new opportunity that follows on from private investment, and which will drive economic renewal, will those projects be on the priority list as we move forward? Furthermore, a long-term, reliable industrial strategy is essential, and I very much welcome it. I also welcome and very much approve of plans for new transparency and accountability in the numbers and forecasts provided to give us a sense of the health and state of the public finances.

In closing, I repeat: will the NHS and social care be very high on the list of choices the Government will have to make? They are essential to the future of both the UK economy and the structures of civil society.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Penn Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, as has been the case with certain previous Treasury Bills, we have had a small but expert group of contributions today, and we have heard some common themes. From the Opposition Front Bench, I say first and foremost that we support the Bill. That should come as no surprise, given that it draws on proposals that were consulted on when we were in government.

As we heard, the genesis was the response to the period of banking stress in spring 2023, particularly the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. It is worth recalling that, at the time, Silicon Valley Bank was successfully sold to HSBC—I do not know whether the pound was actually paid—customers were able to access normal banking services and their deposits were protected in full, at no cost to the taxpayer. This was a significant success.

However, those events raised several questions, one of which is being addressed today: the potential risk to public funds of any resolution action for a small bank, given that, unlike larger banks, they are not required to hold a portion of their own equity and debt above minimum capital requirements to support their resolution. The solution put forward in the Bill is the use of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme levy to meet the costs of recapitalisation that may be needed to support the operation of a bridging bank or facilitate a sale to a private sector buyer.

As I have said, we are supportive of the Bill, but it would be helpful to our scrutiny of it if the Minister were able to give further detail on three areas. The first, which we have had some debate on today, is the approach to resolution versus insolvency. The PRA has set out that it does not seek to operate a zero-failure regime, but rather to work with the Bank of England to ensure that any firms that do fail do so in an orderly way. Prior to the failure of SVB, for smaller banks this was assumed to involve insolvency. With resolution now a viable alternative for smaller banks, it would be useful to understand the extent to which the Government expect resolution to be used, as opposed to insolvency.

The second area is the question of costs. A number of concerns were raised in response to the Government’s consultation with regard to the costs of the new FSCS levy. In particular, reassurance was sought that the most cost-effective mechanism would be used by the Bank of England in considering what course to take. Of course, those two questions are related. I was pleased to see the Government publish a cost-benefit analysis alongside their consultation response—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, has noted, it is not without its limitations. That analysis seeks to provide reassurance that resolution, rather than insolvency, will often be the less costly option, both in terms of direct costs and the wider benefits of customer continuity and public confidence in the banking system. Although that may be welcome, it is hard not to conclude that resolution may become the default option when it comes to managing the failure of a small bank; indeed, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer, have said they would welcome such a move. If that is the case then the proposals we are debating amount to more than just a minor modification of the resolution regime—as is contended by the Government.

This is also an important point as the Government put forward the alternative of insolvency as a check against the inappropriate use of resolution in the case of small banks. For example, in addressing concerns around recapitalisation being used alongside the private purchaser tool, where it may otherwise be reasonable for the purchaser to recapitalise the bank, the Government point to insolvency as an alternative option, providing

“an important safeguard against any inappropriate use of the new mechanism alongside the Private Sector Purchaser stabilisation option.”

That argument is also deployed with respect to any impact of the proposals on market discipline. The Government

“considers this to be a manageable risk when set in wider context, given that insolvency remains an important part of the toolkit.”

Therefore, when the Minister responds, it would be useful for him to set out whether resolution will be the preferred approach to failure over insolvency for small banks. If not, can he give an example of a scenario where insolvency may be used over resolution?

I expect the Minister will likely refer me to the framework in which the Bank of England can deploy its resolution powers in order to answer that question. It will be for the Bank to determine the appropriate response within the resolution conditions and objectives set out in the Banking Act 2009, and in particular the use of the public interest test, which seems to bear significant weight for guiding the operation of the resolution process and providing safeguards to the Government and the banking industry in providing value for money. Again, that may be wholly appropriate, given the need for flexibility in response to scenarios that can be planned for but which invariably play out in unexpected ways. However, we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, about some of the risks, or misalignment of incentives, with so much of the decision-making lying with the Bank of England.

That brings me to the third area where further detail from the Minister may be of help: the scrutiny of and accountability for the use of these powers—a favourite theme from our discussions on the then Financial Services and Markets Bill. The consultation response acknowledges the importance of this, and points to Sections 79A and 80 of the Banking Act 2009, which require the Bank to report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer where it has used resolution powers to transfer a bank to a private sector purchaser or a bridge bank. The report must comply with any requirements specified by His Majesty’s Treasury, which could include requiring the Bank to disclose the estimated costs to industry of the options that were considered.

I am pleased that the Government have said they intend to update the Special Resolution Regime code of practice to reflect the introduction of this new mechanism, and expect that they will confirm that His Majesty’s Treasury will stipulate that reports produced on the use of this new mechanism would require the Bank to disclose the estimated costs to industry of the options considered. I also welcome the expectation that the Treasury will expect to make such reports publicly available, including laying them before Parliament where required to do so under the Banking Act.

However, given the importance of this, it would be useful to see proposed updates to the SRR code of practice alongside this legislation, rather than once it is complete. Could the Minister commit to publishing the proposed updates ahead of the Bill reaching Committee? There is an expectation that such reports would be made public, including laying them before Parliament, but would Minister commit to strengthening this expectation to a commitment? Could he elaborate on where the Banking Act requires such reports to be laid before Parliament and, crucially, where it does not?

The Government have also committed that the update to the Special Resolution Regime code of practice will address the fact that, for larger banks, the new FSCS levy could be seen as charging them twice for the same risk, given that revenues from the existing banking levy can already be drawn upon to support resolution, if needed. One could argue that larger banks are paying for the same risk not twice but three times, as they meet their own MREL requirements to support their resolution. While I understand the Government’s desire to spread the cost of this mechanism across the whole sector to avoid disproportionately burdening smaller banks, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked, what consideration have the Government given to the impact on medium-sized banks that are required both to meet their own MREL requirements and contribute to this new levy?

Finally, I share the concern of many noble Lords that the Bill does not limit the use of this mechanism to the resolution of small banks. Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain of the view that MREL remains the appropriate route for the resolution of larger banks? Is the intention that this mechanism cannot be used for that purpose but is reserved only for smaller banks without MREL in place? This is important to understand whether the scope of the Bill is just a minor adjustment to the resolution regime or a more fundamental shift in how we are approaching failing banks.

These Benches support action taken to update the resolution regime. We acknowledge the need to have a flexible system in place that allows for action to be taken swiftly in response to rapid changes in circumstances, but it is also important that the costs and benefits of such action are properly understood, and that there is transparency and accountability in place for when such powers are deployed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Authorised Push Payment Fraud Performance Report

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the authorised push payment (APP) fraud performance report published by the Payment Systems Regulator in October 2023.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to tackling authorised push payment fraud and stopping customers falling victim to scams. The Government welcome the publication on 31 October by the Payment Systems Regulator of data on the levels of APP fraud and of reimbursement among payment service providers. This will ensure that firms are properly incentivised to combat fraud and explore all avenues to do so.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, this excellent report allows us at long last to see which banks are behaving best and worst in preventing and reimbursing fraud. One of the best ways to reduce fraud would be to stop fraudsters using UK bank accounts to receive the stolen money. We can now see from this report that Metro Bank, TSB, Starling and Monzo are the banks that receive and process the most stolen money. Smaller payment providers are even worse. For every £1 million received by Clear Junction, for example, more than £10,000 was stolen money, and almost 20% of Dzing Finance’s receipts by number were fraudulent. Now that we have this information, what are the Government doing to ensure that banks take real action to stop their accounts being used by fraudsters? Secondly, I congratulate Anthony Browne on his promotion yesterday, but what does that mean for his essential role as the Prime Minister’s Anti-Fraud Champion?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I congratulate the noble Lord, because he was a strong advocate for the publication of this data. As he says, it has indeed been revealing, and I assure noble Lords that action has already been taken on the back of it. On 27 October, the Financial Conduct Authority imposed restrictions on Dzing Finance Ltd, which was the worst-performing payment service provider for fraud volumes received. It now cannot on-board any new retail customers or allow any new incoming funds from retail customers for the purposes of issuances of electronic money or providing payment services without the written agreement of the FCA. In March this year, the FCA wrote to all payment firms, highlighting fraud risks and instructing them to take action to address this. Where issues are identified, the FCA will continue to take action. I also congratulate my friend in the other place on his appointment, but I assure noble Lords that his excellent work will continue under the work of the Home Office.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, the Payment Systems Regulator aims to provide consumers with better information about fraud and the risks associated with each bank and payment services firm. If the volume and value of frauds and scams enabled by particular tech sectors and social media platforms were also published, that publicity would drive those institutions to improve standards and protect users. Will the PSR be asked to direct all payment service providers to include in their APP fraud data submissions for the next publication the value and volume of fraud enabled by the largest social media and tech platforms?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, it would be interesting to look at that and at how that data might be collected. The point at the heart of my noble friend’s question is absolutely right. Banks have a responsibility in this area, and that is why the reimbursement obligation is coming forward, but others have an obligation in this area too. The recent Online Safety Act imposes new obligations on the largest social media companies and platforms to prevent their users being exposed to harmful content, including fraudulent content. I am sure those measures will make a real difference too.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, APP fraud rose by 20% in the first half of this year alone and, according to the Payment Systems Regulator, customers of banks and building societies have wildly different and divergent experiences of receiving compensation and restitution. While I welcome the mandatory reimbursement requirement that will come into force next year, in the meantime, what consideration is being given to mandate appropriate resourcing of out-of-hours fraud and complaints teams within banks to ensure that where an APP fraud has occurred it can be reported and acted on with appropriate speed?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

As the noble Lord has noted, a significant step towards ensuring greater consistency and user experience will be the mandating of reimbursement; we already have 10 signatories to the voluntary reimbursement code. Of course banks need to have proper processes in place to deal with suspected fraud, and I think publications such as the data we had at the end of last month shine a light on how banks are performing and allow consumers to make informed choices about where they bank.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, UK Finance has published analysis that shows that 78% of APP fraud originates online and another 18%—especially high value —via telecoms. These companies face no reimbursement liability at all. Will the Government act to change that and make the telecoms and online companies liable?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

As I have said to noble Lords, through the Online Safety Act, platforms and services in scope will be required to take action to tackle fraud where it is facilitated through user-generated content or via search results. They must take preventive measures to prevent fraudulent content appearing on their platforms and swiftly remove it if it does. Additionally, there will be a duty on the largest social media companies and search engines to prevent fraudulent adverts on their services. Ofcom has the power to fine companies failing their duty of care up to £18 million or 10% of annual global turnover, so there will be accountability in the system for online companies too.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, only 59% of the stolen money has been returned to customers, according to the PSR report. Can the Minister explain what pressures there are on bank directors to, as it were, take care of the customers’ interest? The regulators seem to be incredibly complacent that over 40% of the money still has not been returned. Is it not really a case of restructuring the FCA and the PSR, to ensure that customer representatives have the majority of the seats on the boards of those regulatory bodies so that they can get the protection they need?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that an alternative route forward is already in train: the mandatory reimbursement requirement, which will apply across all payment service providers. As I said, there is currently a voluntary approach in place; a mandatory approach will ensure a much more consistent response for consumers when it is introduced next year.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the latest data from the Payment Systems Regulator shows that instances of payment card and remote banking fraud have fallen by 9% and 29% respectively, driven by greater use of much stronger customer authentication interventions. However, use of such initiatives varies markedly across the financial services sector. Does the Minister believe there is a case for stronger guidance on how digital banking platforms should make use of such technology?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to use a range of tools to respond to fraud taking place through banking. The regulator does have the powers in place to ensure that payment services firms are taking the appropriate action, not just on reimbursement but to prevent the fraud in the first place.

Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of disclosure obligations under the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations 2013 on UK-listed investment companies, in terms of competition, consumer duty, exclusion from investor platforms, and funding crisis for such companies investing in UK small growth businesses, renewable energy and infrastructure.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government and the Financial Conduct Authority understand industry concerns regarding investment company cost disclosure requirements. The issue sits across multiple areas of legislation and we are working at pace to repeal retained EU law under the smarter regulatory framework, enabling the FCA to deliver UK-tailored rules. On the alternative investment fund managers directive specifically, work has already started on plans for reform, with a discussion paper issued by the FCA in February.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. However, does she recognise that an important UK financial sector is being undermined by selling pressure based on exaggerated reported charges figures? These listed, closed-ended investment companies and their institutional investors support British companies in areas including battery storage and wind and solar farms, and offer particularly suitable vehicles for pension funds and other investors in sustainable growth. However, they are deterred by misleading aggregated costs, including by retail investor platforms. Has the Minister’s department urged emergency action following FCA failure to protect the market stability, international competitiveness, fair competition and the consumer duty?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend in recognising that investment trusts play a vital role in raising capital for infrastructure projects across the UK. The FCA is of course independent, but I understand that it is taking forward work to look at what can be done in this area while we take forward the wider programme of measures to repeal retained EU law and replace it with UK rules that will help to address the issue that she raises.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

Does the Minister recognise that the debate around aggregated cost disclosure and associated errors arising from misapplied legislation has highlighted difficulties of amending retained EU law rapidly and the absence of FCA powers to amend legislation or issue useful forbearance notices when needed, given concerns about FiSMA Section 138D on right of action? Can the Minister explain whether His Majesty’s Government are considering how emergency action or forbearance can safely be introduced to avoid being in a tighter static regulatory bind than when we were in the EU, where ESMA had more flexibility and power?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I reassure the noble Baroness that the FCA has the appropriate powers to implement regulatory forbearance where it considers it appropriate, but it must operate within the legal framework and it does not have the powers to amend legislation—that is for this House to do. It is right that forbearance can only be a temporary, short-term fix. That is why the Government are committed to repealing and replacing retained EU law, including legislation related to cost disclosure, under our smarter regulatory framework.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that there really is a win-win situation here—a proven method of investment, offering individuals an opportunity to invest in new technologies relatively safely and new sources of funding for those technologies? The only thing standing in the way is the FCA. Where there is a will, there is a way, so could my noble friend please ask the FCA to engage in some digital extraction?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I reassure my noble friend that the FCA is indeed engaged in this issue, as are the Government. There are many problems with inherited EU financial services rules and we have set out a programme of work to look at how we can repeal them and replace them with UK-appropriate measures. These include the PRIIPs rules, which affect this issue, and the Government have set out our plans to repeal these measures and replace them with FCA rules, as soon as possible.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the primary duty of the FCA is to deliver stability, but the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raising this issue today is not the first time that concerns have been raised about apparent instability in certain markets. Does the Minister remain satisfied that the FCA has the tools and expertise it needs to uphold its duties, and is she confident that it has the capacity to meet its growing workload?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I do remain satisfied and I believe that the Financial Services and Markets Act, which passed through this House earlier this year, updates the tools and framework for the FCA to do its job, now that we have left the EU.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has a Private Member’s Bill before this House, which would create the proper framework for the important investments that she has been discussing. I hope the Government will support her Bill, but would the Minister also introduce a statutory instrument to the House, as proposed by my good noble friend Lady Bowles on many occasions, which would rectify the immediate and emergency situation that is discouraging investment in critical activity in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I have not yet seen the details of my noble friend’s Private Member’s Bill, but I will look at it closely. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is right that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has raised this in the past and I thank her for her work in this area, including her detailed suggestions to reform MiFID, which the Government are considering. As I have said, FSMA 2023 gives us the powers to repeal and replace retained EU law in a more agile way. We intend to use those powers to solve the issue before us.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell us what consultation has taken place with the Financial Services Consumer Panel and other consumer groups on this?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the operation of the consumer panel and other panels of the FCA is a matter for the FCA. I am sure that it draws on all its different panels, as appropriate, when taking forward its work programme.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, one recognises the important issue being raised, but the context has to be understood of a financial services industry that does not have an unblemished record, in terms of the personal pensions and endowment insurance scandals. The FCA has to recognise that it cannot take the good will of the industry towards the client as given.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, some of the issues that the noble Lord sets out are why it is important to take forward the programme of reform in a measured way that takes into account the interests of all involved in the sector, whether industry or consumers, and makes sure that we have proper consultation in everything that we do.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I think the bottom line of this Question is how to get trillions invested in our pension industries back into British enterprise and investment again. At one stage this was considerable, at about 60%, and it is now down to 40%. Is this not a matter of prime urgency in getting the economy really moving again? Can my noble friend outline the key steps she thinks should be taken, or are being taken, to get our pensions trillions back into British industry in a massive way?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right about ensuring that pension funds are invested in the future of British industry. In fact, this was the theme of my right honourable friend the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech this year. He set out a number of reforms that the Government are taking forward to support this. There was rapid consultation on a number of those areas, and we expect further updates at the Autumn Statement.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, repeal of the AIFMD should have been straightforward. When it was brought in some 16 years ago, it was opposed by every party. It was opposed by Labour and the Conservatives, the industry and financial services more widely. What we are seeing here is the way in which, once a sector absorbs the administrative costs of doing something, however much it opposed it coming in, it then becomes an opponent of repeal. Is it not the role of Ministers to look beyond producer capture and look at the interests of the companies that do not yet exist and, above all, at the interests of consumers?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The Government consulted extensively when the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Regulations were introduced. That was some time ago but, as part of the smarter regulatory framework, we are working closely with the FCA to explore what changes can be made to AIFMD to make it more streamlined and tailored to UK markets. I assure all noble Lords that that work is being taken forward with urgency.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, may I press my noble friend? She says the FCA has regulatory powers for forbearance. Given that this is EU-derived legislation that has been misapplied in the UK, no EU country adopts it, no other country in the world adopts it and it is uniquely disadvantaging British companies, is there not a case for emergency action from the FCA once it is aware of this particular problem?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the FCA can apply forbearance when it comes to its rules, but it cannot when it comes to the law; it is for this House to amend the law. I set out that the Government intend to look at the various pieces of underlying EU legislation, including PRIIPs and MiFID, to ensure we address the underlying problem as well as applying forbearance while that work is under way.

King’s Speech

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

My Lords, I add my words of welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne and congratulate them both on their maiden speeches. I am sure that they will prove to be valuable Members of this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, put it well when she described my noble friend Lord Gascoigne as “discreet and decent”. I have always enjoyed working with him over many years in the past, and I look forward to working with him in the future. I also welcome back my noble friend Lord Wakeham to this House, and also welcome the optimism that he brought in his remarks about the opportunities of the future.

Much of today’s debate has focused on the Government’s record on the economy and our plans to grow it in future, so I thought it worth taking some time to go over the facts. Since 2010 the UK economy has grown by more than 24%, faster than France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, Austria, Finland, Belgium, Portugal, and the Netherlands. At the same time, borrowing is forecast to have fallen by 4.7 percentage points, more than that of any other G7 member. We have halved unemployment and cut inequality, and reduced the number of workless households by 1 million. In fact, since 2010, 4 million more people are now in work, with more than 1 million new businesses created.

Increases in tax thresholds made by successive Chancellors mean that people in our country can earn £1,000 a month without paying a penny of tax or national insurance. At the same time, educational outcomes have consistently improved. All this has been delivered while we have cut our carbon emissions by more than 48% between 1990 and 2021, delivering net zero faster than any other major economy.

We also have a bright future ahead of us. We are ranked number one by the World Bank among major European economies as a place to do business. We are home to Europe’s largest life sciences sector, which helped produce a Covid vaccine that saved 6 million lives and a treatment that saved 1 million more. We are only the third country in the world to have developed a trillion-dollar tech economy. Our film and TV industries are the largest in Europe, and our creative industries are growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. We are a world leader in offshore wind, behind only China in the scale of energy production.

But we are not complacent, not least because of the unprecedented shocks our country and economy have faced in recent years. The Covid pandemic forced us to take decisions to shut down large swathes of our economy and made huge demands of our public services, as the NHS went on to a war footing, and teachers and families had to adapt to moving learning for millions of children online and at home. The Government also stepped forward with unprecedented support totalling more than £350 billion during that period. The furlough scheme protected 11.7 million jobs and livelihoods. Our loan support schemes provided lifelines to 1.6 million businesses, as well as cutting VAT for the worst affected, providing a business rates holiday for more than 750,000 businesses, and protecting our arts and cultural sectors through the nearly £2 billion culture recovery fund. We supported our public transport systems with more than £12.8 billion of funding, our NHS with £81 billion of Covid ring-fenced spending, and our schools with nearly £5 billion towards educational recovery since the 2020-21 academic year.

In 2022 we emerged from the pandemic earlier than many other countries thanks to our vaccine rollout, and our economy grew at the fastest rate of any G7 nation. But in March of that year, we faced a further global shock after Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Energy prices shot up, adding to inflationary pressures caused by global supply chains needing to rebuild after Covid. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, sought to lay the blame for inflation and therefore higher interest rates at the Government’s door. However, given his emphasis on Labour’s respect for the independent Bank of England, perhaps he will defer to its analysis from the August Monetary Policy Report this year, which explained:

“High inflation has been caused by a series of big shocks. The first shock was the Covid pandemic … The second shock was Russia’s invasion of Ukraine … The third shock was a big fall in the number of people available to work”.


In May the IMF confirmed that we have taken “decisive and responsible” action to bear down on inflation and achieve the right balance of fiscal and monetary response, while also focusing on growing the economy.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Bakewell, asked what the King’s Speech is doing to support households with this higher cost of living, but they neglected to recognise the significant ongoing support already in place. Over the past year, government support paid for about half the average household energy bill and provided one of the largest household support packages in Europe. We extended the temporary 5p fuel duty cut and a freeze to fuel duty representing a saving for the average driver of £200 since the record 5p cut was introduced.

I reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that we have targeted our support at the most vulnerable, with cost of living payments to more than 8 million households on means-tested benefits and 8 million pensioner households, and to 6 million people on disability benefits, worth respectively £900, £300 and £150 this year on top of payments of £650, £300 and £150 last year. This is in addition to uprating benefits by 10.1% this year in line with inflation and protecting the triple lock for around 12 million pensioners, worth £11 billion.

My right honourable friend the Chancellor confirmed that the UK Government will accept the Low Pay Commission’s forthcoming recommendation on the increase in the national living wage from April 2024, currently forecast to increase to at least £11 an hour. This means that the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage will increase by more than £1,000 next year.

There is no doubt that we have faced real challenges over the past few years, but this Government have stood by the British people every step of the way. When we look ahead, the Prime Minister has set three clear priorities for the economy to ensure that we recover from the shocks we have faced and once again release the potential of this great nation. First and foremost, we remain steadfast in our commitment to cutting inflation, the most insidious tax on household budgets there is. We are on track to deliver our aim to halve inflation this year as a staging post to returning to the 2% target, and decisions by the Bank of England’s independent Monetary Policy Committee remain the primary tool for controlling inflation.

It is also essential that fiscal policy acts in support of, rather than working against, monetary policy. That is why the measures taken by the Chancellor at this year’s Budget were focused on easing some of the longer-term drivers of inflation. Indeed, the reforms announced at the Budget were the largest supply-side measures ever scored by the OBR.

We have also taken the difficult but necessary decisions needed to control public sector borrowing. Additional borrowing would increase aggregate demand and place further pressure on inflation and interest rates. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, asked about the current level of government debt and the cost of servicing it. Government debt currently stands at £2,702 billion, and the OBR March forecast put debt interest costs at £94 billion this financial year. This figure puts into stark relief the challenge before us, set out so ably by my noble friend Lord Bridges. I say to my noble friend that, while it was absolutely right for the Government to step in in response to Covid and the energy price shock, an ever-growing state cannot be the new norm, particularly in a future where we know there will be growing demands on the state, whether it is to support the energy transition or to harness and respond to the technological revolution—challenges to future global growth so eloquently set out by my noble friend Lady Moyo. As my noble friend Lord Bridges said, the future will demand clear choices from government about what it can and should do and a relentless focus on productivity in the public sector and, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, in the private sector.

I reassure noble Lords that these themes and concerns drive this Government forward. In contrast, despite the valiant attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, to reassure noble Lords of Labour’s commitment to fiscal responsibility, despite its record in government, he failed to explain how Labour’s plans to spend £28 billion extra every year could be paid for without additional tax hikes or adding to this borrowing burden.

Getting debt falling is essential in ensuring that we do not pass on the burden to future generations who would have to pay it off. It provides space to allow government to respond to future shocks and reduces spending on debt interest that could otherwise support public services—or, in response to my noble friend Lady Noakes, put money back into people’s and businesses’ pockets through cutting their tax burden. As an aside to my noble friend Lord Balfe, I reassure him that we have delivered on George Osborne’s commitment to cut inheritance tax.

In its latest forecast, the OBR confirmed that the Government are on track to deliver their debt target. However, challenges remain: borrowing and debt are high by historical standards, and the headroom to debt falling is historically low. Controlling inflation and getting debt falling provide the foundations for our third priority: long-term, sustainable growth. Growth is the key to building confidence, security and hope for the future. It rewards aspiration and invention, creates freedom and choice, and strengthens our communities and our country. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth put it, it is the prerequisite for any action by government to support vulnerable households and essential public services.

The Spring Budget set out an ambitious programme of measures to drive economic growth across employment, enterprise, education, and everywhere in the UK, without irresponsibly fuelling inflation. We will look to build on this further at the Autumn Statement; I hope the noble Lord, Lord Desai, will forgive me if I do not pre-empt that today. The Budget package included a landmark childcare offer, and key new policies to ensure the UK business tax system is one of the most comprehensive of the world’s major economies.

In today’s debate we have focused on a number of other important areas driving our future growth. One has been the role of technology, in particular AI, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, my noble friend Lady Moyo and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. The AI Safety Summit was an important step forward to deploying this crucial technology with the launch of the world’s first AI safety institute, which will help spur international collaboration on the safe development of AI.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, also called for more effective digital competition policy. That is exactly what the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill is designed to address, providing new powers to the Digital Markets Unit in the CMA and building on the Online Safety Act, creating a modern regulatory framework for online platforms and tech companies.

My noble friends Lord Altrincham and Lord Trenchard raised the potential of our financial services sector, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, touched on pension reforms. Both these areas have significant potential to unlock further investment in the UK. The Government will continue to pursue reform at pace, with appropriate safeguards.

The Government’s economic priorities have also driven our approach to delivering on net zero. Since March 2021, the Government have committed a total of £30 billion of domestic investment to the green industrial revolution. Since then, the Government have announced an additional £12 billion for energy efficiency and low-carbon heating to support the work we are doing to reduce the UK’s energy consumption from buildings and industry by 15% by 2030 relative to 2021 levels. We have also announced up to £20 billion for early deployment of carbon capture, utilisation and storage in the UK. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, we are currently working with industry on the right quantum of spend within a given period. These are commercial negotiations, the outcomes of which we will announce at the next spending review and future spending reviews, to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of deploying this technology.

The policies set out in the Net Zero Strategy 2021 and the Net Zero Growth Plan 2023 are expected to mobilise an additional £100 billion of private investment and support 480,000 jobs across the UK. But we know there is more to be done, so we are doubling down on tackling the most significant constraints to our transition —accelerating grid connections, addressing issues with planning and improving auction rounds for renewable power, as well as investing in UK green R&D.

At the same time we are investing in our energy security and making sure that we smooth the transition for households in a pragmatic way. The impacts of Putin’s war in Ukraine have made clear the need for greater energy security in the UK and Europe, which can be secured only by boosting the range of domestic energy supplies that we have available.

Renewable power reached a record share of 48.2% of total generation in the first quarter of 2023. When you include nuclear, low-carbon sources provided over 60% of total generation. In future the UK will be powered by renewables including wind, solar and hydrogen power with carbon capture, usage and storage and new nuclear plants.

The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked about tidal and wave energy. The Government have invested over £175 million in wave and tidal stream innovation over the last two decades. The Government announced on 8 September that a record 11 tidal-stream contracts have been secured in the latest contract for difference, thanks in large part to a ring-fenced tidal budget. On wave energy, we continue to engage with domestic and European industry, academia and the devolved Governments, including collaborating with Wave Energy Scotland.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

I am sorry to hold up the Minister in her magnificent tour de force but I asked her a specific question about the consent process consultation. If she does not have the answer to hand on wave energy, would she please write to me?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness.

We have launched a nuclear revival. The Government invested to become a shareholder in Sizewell C in November 2022 and launched a capital raise process in September this year to bring in new project finance. We have launched Great British Nuclear to drive the delivery of new nuclear technologies beyond Sizewell and to develop the latest small modular reactor technologies, and last month we announced the shortlist of companies to build the new generation of small modular reactors. Beyond the initial focus on delivery, Great British Nuclear will be available to support further nuclear ambitions. It has the statutory backing and resources behind it to deliver against its long-term operational mandate.

Through the nuclear fuel fund we will invest over £35 million, match funded by industry, to develop new domestic fuel production capabilities and to supply gigawatt reactors, SMRs and AMRs. On siting, we are developing a nuclear national policy statement that will cover the policy framework for deploying new nuclear power stations beyond 2025. As an initial step, we plan to consult on our proposed approach for determining new nuclear sites by the end of this year, with our aim to finalise a consultation on the NPS next year and complete parliamentary scrutiny to enable its designation in 2025. We will launch our consultation on alternative routes to market next month and, following our review of responses, deliver a report in 2024. I hope that responds to the questions from both the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who are both great advocates for the nuclear industry. Perhaps I can write to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, to respond to his specific questions about the two sites that he focused on in his contribution.

However, we also need to recognise that data published by the Climate Change Committee shows that the UK will continue to rely on oil and gas to meet its energy needs even after the UK reaches net zero in 2050. That will include the use of gas for power generation and carbon capture usage and storage. That is why we are investing in the range of domestic energy supplies that we have available, including taking steps to slow the decline in the domestic production of oil and gas, which will reduce our reliance on hostile states and back a thriving industry in the UK that supports 200,000 jobs. It is important to recognise that the UK is a rapidly declining producer of oil and gas, and new oil and gas licences will reduce the fall in UK supply to ensure vital energy security, rather than increasing it above current levels, so that the UK remains on track to meet its net-zero 2050 commitments.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, that we recognise the unprecedented profits made by oil and gas producers after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. These profits represent not a return on investment but a windfall as a result of unprovoked war. It is therefore right that we introduced the energy profits levy on those windfall profits, bringing the tax rate on the profits of North Sea oil and gas producers to 75%. By 2027 the levy is expected to raise almost £26 billion, having already generated around £5.9 billion, helping us—as I said earlier—to pay half the typical household’s energy bill between October and June.

We also want to take a fair approach to decarbonising how we heat our homes, which is why we are giving people more time to make the necessary transition to heat pumps. We have increased the boiler upgrade scheme cash grants by 50%, to £7,500, to support consumers who want to make the transition now. It is one of the most generous grants in Europe.

I reassure noble Lords that, in taking into account the changes to the boiler and electric vehicles mandate and the ongoing licensing of domestic oil and gas reserves, we are confident that we can deliver our carbon budgets and capitalise on the opportunities for green growth. So I say to the many noble Lords who raised concerns in this area that we remain completely committed to our existing targets and to meeting net zero by 2050, compatible with the Paris Agreement ambition to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees.

We will continue to listen to and engage with the expertise in this House on climate and nature. I say to my noble friend Lord Lilley that our approach will be informed by evidence, pragmatism and rational debate. Our package of proposals and policies will continue to evolve to adapt to changing circumstances, to utilise technological developments and to address emerging challenges.

But we are in no doubt about the real and present threat that climate change and biodiversity loss represent to our economy and society, and there is no change in our commitment to tackling this challenge. The UK overachieved against its first and second carbon budgets, and the latest projections show that we are on track to meet the third. We are able to quantify the vast majority of carbon savings in the late 2030s, more than a decade away.

Environment and nature are the other side of the coin when it comes to tackling climate change. I reassure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who spoke so eloquently of his own work on ecology, that not only have this Government done more than any other on the environment and nature—including through the landmark Environment Act—but we remain committed to going further, through our commitment to end the net loss of biodiversity in the UK by 2030. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that we need to put people and rural communities at the heart of this approach. We will not achieve this transition without the support and action of farmers and land managers.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the live animal export Bill and whether there is a means to restrict live animal imports from the EU. I say to her that there has never been a significant import trade for slaughter or fattening. For example, since 2019, only 91 cattle, 14 sheep and 20 pigs have been imported for slaughter from mainland Europe—so we do not see a pressing case to take action in this area. On my noble friend’s question about border control points, I reassure her that our new border control point at Sevington, covering the short straits, opens in April. Other border control points will open around the UK, securing our biosecurity with our new border targeting operating model.

A number of noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, raised concerns about the impact of recent flooding on farmers. The flood recovery framework provides funding for households and businesses affected by severe flooding, and it includes several grants and business rates relief.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, that I know that my noble friend Lord Caine spent several hours with her in communities affected by the recent floods. In the absence of the Executive, who could have acted swiftly, the UK Government are making money available to support those affected by floods, through the reallocation of existing funding.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who, among others, raised the reform of water regulation, that we are driving the largest infrastructure investment in water company history—an estimated £60 billion of water company capital investment by 2050—to meet storm overflow discharge reduction plan targets, which were recently expanded to cover all storm overflows in England, including those discharging to coastal and estuarine waters. But I will of course pass on to Defra the proposal from the noble Duke for the future of regulation in this area.

This brings us on to the theme of what is not in the King’s Speech, and to speak to the concerns raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Bakewell, around the ending of peat in horticulture. It remains our policy that we intend to legislate to restrict and ultimately ban the sale of peat and peat-containing products. We appreciate that there is good support for this from the public and from within Parliament.

I turn to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who raised the subject of disposable vapes. The Government launched a consultation on smoking and the use of vaping earlier this month. As part of it, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations are considering restrictions on the sale and supply of disposable vapes, including prohibiting the sale of these products due to the environmental impacts that they have.

The noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Livermore, and many others raised the question of employment rights. I say to noble Lords that, over the past year, we have proven our commitment to supporting workers by introducing a number of new employment rights via government hand-out Bills, including a new day one right to request flexible working; a new legal right to request predictable working patterns; additional protections for pregnant women against redundancy; a right to paid leave for employees whose child is receiving neonatal care; and a right for unpaid carers to one week of additional unpaid leave. Action is being taken in that area.

Perhaps related is the question of unpaid Ministers in this House, as raised by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. I and my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal have heard my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s plea and impressed the point at the highest levels. However, as he is well aware, the number of Ministers who are paid is set out in legislation, and to improve the lot of our Ministers who are unpaid we would need to legislate. Unfortunately, there is not currently the appetite to do that.

I turn to the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Snape, who questioned the inclusion of the Pedicabs (London) Bill in the King’s Speech—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I appreciate her courtesy in referring to what I said. As David Cameron is joining the House on a salary of £106,000, can we take it that his Minister of State will be paid?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I could not possibly comment on that, but I join my noble friend in welcoming David Cameron to his new post. I think we will be very pleased to have someone of such talent and experience join your Lordships’ House.

To return to pedicabs, they are the only form of unregulated public transport on London’s roads. If we could deal with it through by-laws, that would be fantastic, but in fact it takes primary legislation to deal with that issue.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Birt, Lord Grocott, and others, regretted the cancellation of High Speed 2 beyond Birmingham. We absolutely recognise the need better to support critical links between and within our cities and towns, but the reality is that High Speed 2 is crowding out investment to further these priorities elsewhere across the country. We have made the difficult decision not to extend High Speed 2 and, instead, to deliver the £36 billion of savings that we have allocated to Network North, an ambitious pipeline of alternative projects. The new plan will provide direct benefits to more people and more places and will do so more quickly than the previous plan for High Speed 2.

The noble Lord, Lord Birt, raised the need to upgrade the trans-Pennine rail route, which is absolutely a priority for this Government. The upgrade programme is expected to provide an extra two trains per hour and aims to reduce journey times between Manchester Victoria and Leeds from 55 to 41 minutes. The Government have committed £3 billion to date, and an announcement on future funding will be made later this year.

To the noble Lord, Lord Jones, I say that we are delivering a £1 billion upgrade to the north Wales main line, including electrification and improving journey times to better connect Wales with London and the north-west. We will now proceed with the steps necessary to implement this, including reflecting on the existing package of legislation before Parliament, necessary consultative steps, business case development, and our parliamentary and legal and fiscal duties.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, asked whether I stand behind the briefing that the first models of self-drive vehicles could be offered to market by 2026 if they are proved safe. The short answer, which at this time of the night will be appreciated by noble Lords, is yes.

So, this Government have a comprehensive plan to deliver a strong economy, secure energy supplies, a state-of-the-art transport sector and a safeguarded environment. From bringing down inflation and the national debt to growing the economy and tackling climate change, we are committed to making long-term decisions for the benefit of everyone across this United Kingdom. That is what the first King’s Speech in many a generation delivers, and I commend it to the House.

Debate adjourned until tomorrow.

Local Authorities: Budgets

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of inflation on local authorities’ budgets; and how many local authorities they estimate will issue Section 114 notices in this financial year.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

The Government recognise the pressures that councils are facing. The 2023-24 local government finance settlement provided councils with a 9% increase in core spending power in total, demonstrating how the Government stand behind councils. Councils are responsible for managing their budgets. Any decision to issue a Section 114 notice is taken locally by the chief finance officer. The Government stand ready to speak to any council that has concerns about its ability to manage its finances.

[Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies report last month concluded that the current funding system is not fit for purpose. It pointed out stark geographical differences in spending for local government, with the most deprived 20% of areas receiving 9% less than their estimated needs, while the least deprived 20% received 15% more. If the Government are serious about levelling up and the 700-page Bill we have just completed on Report is not ministerial flim-flam, when will the Government set out the timeframe for funding reforms that align local government funding with levelling-up goals?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the existing system for local government funding directs increased resource to those councils with greater need. We understand the desire for clarity on distributional reform. We have confirmed that we will not be proceeding with the review of relative needs and resources, or a business rate reset, in the current spending review period, but we remain committed to improving local government finance in the next Parliament, and we will work closely with local partners and take stock of the challenges and opportunities they face before consulting on any further potential funding reform.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will understand that, due to the cuts that have taken place in local government, some authorities are in real terms said to be not yet back to where they were in 2010. That being so, will the Government consider a major review of the fundamental funding of local government services?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I just set out the position on broader reform to the funding system for local government. The Government recognise the pressures that local authorities are facing. At the spending review 2021, the Government confirmed that councils in England would receive £4.8 billion of new grant funding between 2022-23 and 2024-25 to meet pressures in social care and other services. We also recognised in the Autumn Statement last year that the position on inflation had changed the position for councils, and set out additional funding to respond to that.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, is it not tragic that Birmingham—once the jewel of local government, thanks to Joseph Chamberlain and his son Neville, the reforming lord mayor in the early 20th century—should have been reduced to its present pass? What is to be done about this great council? Should it be split up? Its present position is truly tragic.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, as we speak, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up is giving a Statement to the House of Commons on action to be taken on Birmingham City Council. It is the Government’s intention to appoint commissioners in that instance, but there will be a period of consultation, I believe, before that is brought forth.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the Government have finally recognised that councils are facing financial difficulties. However, the Government have been defunding councils over a number of years, so even with the relatively small increase this year, they are still 25% down on the levels they had in 2010. How does that fit with the levelling-up agenda?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I do not recognise the figures that the noble Baroness has put forward. She will know, having been part of the coalition Government in 2010, that the situation this Government inherited from the Benches opposite required difficult decisions to be taken at the time.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The Benches opposite may not like being reminded of their record, but it remains a fact. The reality is that in the recent spending review we have committed more money to local government services, and that was increased further last year at the Autumn Statement in light of the inflationary pressures that councils are facing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this Government can promise what they like for the next election, but the fact is that they are not going to be in power, so all those promises come to nothing. What this Government have done is to reduce council budgets and make severe cuts. I heard only today from councillors from East Hertfordshire Council that the Government have cancelled four big infrastructure projects. How can councils carry on if this Government do not support them, which they are not doing?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are supporting councils. This is not about what is happening after the next election. In this spending review period, councils will receive £4.8 billion of new grant funding—the largest annual increase in core funding in over a decade—and that was further topped up at the Autumn Statement last year, recognising the pressures that councils face. Councils are doing an excellent job up and down the country, and we support them.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the reasons so many local authorities are in such financial trouble these days is because there is a lack of external scrutiny and transparency since the scrapping of the Audit Commission in 2015?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

No, I do not agree. In recent years, a small number of local authorities took on excessive debt through their commercial strategies and investments. The Government have taken action both to bring this practice to an end and to revise the framework by which local authorities can borrow and invest. The levelling-up Bill expands statutory powers to directly tackle excessive risk within the local government capital system.

[Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)]

My Lords, the scrapping of the Audit Commission was one of the best functions of the previous coalition Government. The Audit Commission wasted billions of pounds of public money.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My noble friend sets out the rationale for the decision that was taken, and the Government have made sure that, in the commission’s place, we have strong controls so that local government spending is done in the best possible way.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, arts facilities will be among the first to go when local authorities have no money. The wonderful Lightbox gallery in Woking, not far from me, is now under threat, as indeed is funding elsewhere for symphony orchestras and much else. I repeat what others have asked: will the Government properly fund our local authorities, which have been underfunded for years, so that all our cultural and leisure amenities are allowed to survive and thrive?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat what I said about the recent spending review being the largest increase to core spending powers for local government in over a decade. Additionally, we have put significant support into the arts and culture sector through not only the culture recovery fund during the pandemic but, for example, support to swimming pools— they face high energy costs during the current period of inflation—in the last Autumn Statement. We continue to provide that specific support.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government not been fiddling with the local government finance system for years? Do we not now need an academic study to come forward with a plan for local government funding that takes into account deprivation and the need to spend?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I do not agree with the noble Lord’s analysis but, as I said to the noble Baroness in my Answer, our approach takes councils’ relative needs into account. We recognise that this may need to be looked at again but, to provide councils with certainty, that will not be done during this spending review period; it will be looked at after the next Parliament.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, we currently give three-quarters of local councils their grants from the centre. It is a higher figure than for anywhere in Europe, except tiny Malta, hence the assumption on all sides is that the solvency of local authorities is ultimately for central government. Does the Minister not agree that it would be healthier for democracy if local councils raised a higher proportion of their own budgets, so that there was a proper link between taxation, representation and expenditure?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are moving towards such steps—for example, through mayoral combined authorities and other areas where we are devolving both greater control of funding and powers to those areas to act. With that comes greater accountability.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

Can my noble friend say whether the Government have received any proposals from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on where additional funding for local government is to be provided from?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I have not received any such representations, but they have perhaps gone to the department for levelling up; I will ask it if it has ever received such representations from the Opposition Front Bench.

Home Office: ODA-funded Support

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I draw attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Penn) (Con)]

ODA-eligible costs of supporting refugees and asylum seekers in the UK have increased significantly, including to reflect support offered to Ukrainian and Afghan citizens. The Government have provided £2.5 billion of additional ODA to mitigate impacts on wider aid budgets and will continue to strike an appropriate balance between fiscal responsibility and our development objectives.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, had the Government not broken the pledge to deliver 0.7%, the overseas aid budget would now be £17.5 billion, which is £4.75 billion more than is currently proposed. Worse, domestic support for refugees going on hotels, barges and Rwanda is taken from that reduced ODA budget. Will the Minister acknowledge that giving the Home Office a blank cheque to raid the aid budget gives no incentive for restraint, value for money or processing the backlog of asylum claims and allows it to waste even more money on unsuitable accommodation? Can the Minister be proud of that? Should what is left of the budget not be protected instead of being used to balance the books on the backs of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I do not accept the points that the noble Lord has made. It is right that we provided the responses that we did to crises such as that in Ukraine but it is also important that we deliver value for money in our spending in this area. We continue to look to drive down the costs of asylum accommodation in particular. The Home Office has doubled the number of caseworkers in the last two years and continues to recruit more. It is streamlining and modernising its end-to-end process, with improved guidance and use of digital technology. We are also looking very carefully at where we accommodate people and how we can drive better value for money there too.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

On where the Government choose to accommodate people, the Minister will recall that, in July, the High Court found that the Home Office’s use of hotels for unaccompanied child refugees was “systematic and unlawful”. Have the Government decided on a response to that judgment?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Government will update the House when we respond to that judgment.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that the Government would be able to be much fairer to genuine refugees if they got a grip of the shortage of manpower dealing with the vast of cohort of people who are applying for asylum but will never get it, and brought to the places where those applicants live tribunals and officials who could deal with them in what might loosely be called “real time”?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, as I said in response to an earlier question, the Home Office is increasing the number of caseworkers to deal with asylum claims; it has more than doubled that over the last two years. Of course, the Illegal Migration Act will be an important part of our strategy here as it will end illegal entry as a route to asylum in the UK.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister acknowledge the difficulties that this uncertainty around ODA allocation and budgeting causes for those who are trying to deliver our programmes around the world? Not only does such uncertainty risk the success of our programmes but it can damage our international relations and, of course, it delivers bad value for money for the UK taxpayer. How are the Government working to provide more certainty here?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I acknowledge some of the points that my noble friend has made. There has been disruption to the FCDO’s ODA budget. In addition to the additional £2.5 billion that was allocated to help to manage those, the publication of the FCDO’s provisional ODA allocations for 2024-25 demonstrates our commitment to openness and transparency, and enables FCDO teams and their partners across the world to forward-plan.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Minister referred to the Illegal Migration Act. The Home Office assumed that it would be able to score on ODA all the costs of the that Act, but it cannot. I asked for clarification of the consequences for the taxpayer of having to fill that gap for the cost of the Act from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, on 12 July. He did not reply on that day, so I wrote to him through the noble Lord, Lord Murray, on 14 July. I confirmed with his office just this afternoon that the letter had been received but I have not received a reply. I am glad that the Leader is in his place because he speaks passionately and sincerely about this House being able to do our constitutional duty and ask questions of the Government and hold them to account. The Home Office simply does not wish to reply to letters when it does not like the questions that are in them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I will happily take the noble Lord’s point and make it to my noble friend and the government department. In addressing the point that maybe he was making, as I said, the Illegal Migration Act represents a vital step forward in the Government’s plans to tackle illegal migration. I reassure noble Lords that we will continue to report all ODA, consistent with OECD and DAC rules, and we will continue in our commitment to spending 0.5% until we can return to 0.7% when fiscal circumstances align. We keep all our ODA spending forecasts under review to deliver that, and will be closely looking at the evolution of eligible asylum spending as the Illegal Migration Act is implemented.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all familiar with the Government’s decision to purchase the “Bibby Stockholm” barge and to move asylum seekers on to it even though it was not fit for habitation. Can the Minister confirm whether that purchase was made, in whole or in part, using any ODA funds? Does she consider that purchase to represent good value for money, and are any other such purchases planned?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I reassure the noble Lord that all spending is done in line with DAC rules, and I can report back to him on the specific point about that spending. However, when it comes to looking at accommodation solutions for asylum seekers, we are driven by looking at what represents good value for money for the taxpayer. Accommodating asylum seekers in hotels is absolutely not good value for money, and we will continue to look at different solutions to help to accommodate those to whom we have an obligation.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, could the Minister perhaps confirm whether, under the international rules about using ODA for asylum seekers and, above all, Ukrainians—to whom the Government’s welcome was very good—that runs for only one year? Are the Government now cutting off the mulcting of the aid budget for this purpose for those Ukrainians who have been here for more than a year?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that ODA-eligible spending runs for the first year in country. Of course, the programmes have been designed to deliver support that is appropriate to those moving to this country and where there are costs beyond that year, they are met from elsewhere in government departments’ budgets.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, the impacts of cuts in aid have been and will continue to be significant. The equality impact assessment published by the International Development Committee revealed some of the effects, particularly on women. For example, the number of maternal deaths that will be averted by the women’s integrated sexual health programme will fall by more than half. In Afghanistan, the maternal mortality rate will worsen. How will the Government look to mitigate the impact of these cuts, particularly on women and girls?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that the reduction in ODA spending has had important consequences and we are, as I say, committed to returning to 0.7% when the fiscal situation allows. In various international development strategy documents, we have also set out how we will prioritise spending to the lowest-income households in humanitarian efforts, while aligning our programmes further with our ambitions on supporting women and girls in order to address the issues that the right reverend Prelate has set out.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has twice cited the Illegal Migration Act in defence of government policy. Can she say which part of that Act is working?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, that Act is only in the process of being brought into force but it is an important part of our approach to reducing the pressures of illegal migration, so that we can better address the needs of legitimate asylum claims in this country.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, following the previous question, how will the Act, when it is implemented, stop the boat people?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, by ending illegal entry as a route to claim asylum in the UK, we will change incentives for those who wish to enter the UK by that route, but it is not the only action that the Government are taking. We are working closely with law enforcement in France; we have a number of other initiatives upstream that are all aimed at tackling this problem, and we have seen that small boat arrivals to the UK are down by 20% this year.

Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Penn]

That the Regulations laid before the House on 26 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 July.

Motion agreed.