(1 week, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I think the Minister ought to get my noble friend Lord Sikka a job in HMRC. I have some connections there too. However, I start by paying great tribute to my good friend and associate, the noble Lord, Lord St John, with whom I have spent many hours together over the years. I wish his club Chelsea well, and I wish him and his family a long and happy enjoyment of many years ahead. I thank him greatly for the service he has given to the House.
I am pleased that the Spring Statement was low key and that, to a degree, we have achieved some stability, compared with where we were in 2024. We still have a lot left to do, without any doubt. With the Middle East and Trump, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, inferred, and with a great many people unemployed—if you count the total who are in part-time employment—we have a whole series of problems facing us. Unemployment could grow to be much bigger than we have seen.
In any event, the noble Lord, Lord St John, referred to AI and the changes that are coming to employment with AI. There are changes in attitude already taking place with younger people, many of whom do not want to be going into work. If you spend time with them, substantial numbers of them have an entirely different view of life from what we had. We are going to have to start looking at the issues from a quite different angle, but for the moment we look at what we have.
Contrary to the great criticisms the Minister has had to bear, I am going to say a few words of gratitude to him. The one thing that the Tories, and the Lib Dems with them, achieved between 2010 and 2024 was that we had growth. We had great growth around the waist and on the weighing scales when we got on them; we saw that particularly among our children. We had the biggest growth taking place that we had seen for a long time.
This young man, the Minister, has done some work with sugar taxes. I congratulate him on the quiet work he has done in the background by making a number of changes, with more to come, to reduce the element of sugar we have, or certainly to raise taxes on that sugar. That will be to the benefit of the youth and their health in the future. I thank him for the work he has done on that. He should keep trying to persuade the manufacturing, food and drink industries, and induce them to change the composition of many products to make them healthier. I suggest to him again that we have a look at an inducement to use stevia instead of sugar, and that the Government might think about offering tax reliefs to encourage people to switch away from sugar to that. It is much healthier and in the long term would be of great benefit to young people, but in particular to the tax we have to raise to run the National Health Service.
I come back to growth and investment. We had a debate last week with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, complaining that we do not have enough investment in the country. The following day, we had a big debate saying, “Please do not take money from our pensions and put it into home investment”. We would like to see the voluntary Mansion House agreement working, but if it does not we should try to persuade people more strongly to put money into the UK. From the Government’s point of view, we should explore how we can offer tax incentives if people are not voluntarily willing to do it, so that we will see more capital go into investment.
I come to my repeated subject about opportunities for investment. The noble Baroness opposite shares my view on this. We have simply not done the work that we should do on public/private partnerships. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, the ex-head of the Treasury, is not present but has said that we need to review the old arrangements—this is not PFI, but PPPs. We should change them and extend how we define the public and the private. A real winner for us in election terms would be to extend the private to include the public, with Joe Bloggs investing on a scale that we saw in some of the periods under Margaret Thatcher. That will be a very useful means of attracting political support, and particularly for raising cash that is needed for infrastructure in the UK. There is money to be found for investment if we simply use our heads and start offering investments rather than perhaps being seen to be hitting people. I hope that my noble friend will look at that.
I have no financial interest in it, but I am linked to some dentists and some American capitalists who are waiting to put money into the UK. They want to open 40 A&E centres for people with dentistry problems, yet we can get no movement. I do not see any reason why we should not be innovative or look to involve the public in investing in such ventures attached to the NHS to remedy some of the great problems that we have with dentistry, particularly among youngsters.
There is much to be done. I hope that we might have more consensus across the House, as I did with the noble Baroness earlier, in finding solutions to these problems. We are going to be hit with changes taking place in the world and with climate change. We need to come closer together and work on solutions commonly, rather than spend so much time banging each other over the heads. There is so much to be gained from working together rather than disagreeing.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, like the financial markets, I am reasonably comfortable overall with the Budget, with its focus on endeavouring to reduce the cost of living and improve the circumstances and prospects of children and on investment in and protection of essential public services. Many of those were neglected by the previous Administration. Brexit, which was not Labour Party policy, means that we have lost 6% in the value of our way of life. Austerity was lauded as a virtue, but it had its damaging effects on public infrastructure, yet we have had low productivity and growth under the previous Governments.
We did have some growth in a particular area: we had growth in our waistlines and in obesity. The previous Government aided this. Duties on alcohol were frozen consistently over many years. I welcome the Government’s restoration of the indexing duties with RPI.
I also welcome the initiatives on gambling. The previous Government saw a great growth in gambling but took little action on it. In particular, I congratulate my friend the Financial Secretary on the interest he has taken in sugar. I am sure that members of the recent Select Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity will be similarly pleased to see so much movement taking place on tackling the problems with sugar. Announcements made last week on changes in this area will benefit our health and in particular, I hope, that of our children.
I welcome the encouragement from my noble friend Lord Wood for the Government to continue looking for other areas to raise funds for public investment. No matter who is in power, if we are to develop and grow, we need investment and money going in. That means revenue has to be found from as many sources as possible. It may not all be through income tax: there are other sources which I believe we do not explore.
We should be looking at the new, unaddressed addiction of compulsive digital use: scrolling, mobile phone dependency and so on. This is now having a wide-scale effect on health in a variety of different ways. We do not really have a public framework for digital addiction, nor any related fiscal approach to how the fastest-growing addiction in the UK should be tackled. It has measurable economic costs. We could tax digital features: those that are intentionally engineered to maximise compulsion. We could consider levies on the infinite scrolling in which so many people are now engaging. We could look at the autoplay video and bottomless “For you” feeds. There is a whole range of changes taking place where there are opportunities to raise funds. What work is being done in the Treasury in these areas?
I am personally very much in favour of AI, but it has its damaging effects and we must address them. If the Government continues to focus on it, I believe that AI will find a way to generate great growth in our economy. For those noble Lords who question the wisdom of AI, I suggest getting an app and having a look to see what it suggests on taxation and the ways that funding for public investment can be found.
(5 months ago)
Lords Chamber
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his insight from that period. He is absolutely right. It was a time of high productivity; it is a shame that the second Conservative Government after that did not maintain it. We now have to deal with the inheritance from that Government. He is right to say that private sector investment is a key driver of productivity, so the lesson I draw from that period is that we have to encourage greater levels of private sector investment. Under the previous Government, private sector investment fell to the lowest in the whole G7. We have so far welcomed £120 billion in private investment and a further £150 billion during the US state visit last month alone.
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we are very good at telling other people what to do? Is it not time that we started having a look at our practices and productivity to see whether we can run Parliament and the Commons much more effectively than we are at the moment?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very happy to say that that may be a question for someone other than me.
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords Chamber
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Again, I am very happy to take that as a Budget representation. As the noble Lord knows, we keep all taxes under review, but I will not be speculating on the next Budget.
My Lords, the Government have very wisely produced a number of 10-year strategic plans for the country, which have generally been welcome. The one area where we have not done any serious work is on taxation, and the fact is that both the wealthy and less wealthy are going to have to pay more money in the future to deliver these strategies. On VAT, there is a good deal of opportunity for flexibility, and the Minister has indicated that a review is taking place. Could that not be widened to see how far VAT could be extended to raise additional funds? Beyond that, could we not think about a review for a 10-year strategy on taxation for the country? We might try and bring in the Opposition to get them involved with it, too.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I know this is something that is close to my noble friend’s heart, and he has made those points to me several times. As I have said before, I am happy to take that as a Budget representation, but I am not going to speculate on the next Budget now.
(9 months ago)
Lords Chamber
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord—I was going to say “my noble friend”—for his question. The fiscal rules are non-negotiable, as he will know. We have put them in place for exactly the reasons he described. Too often in the past, public investment has been cut to patch up holes in day-to-day spending. The reason we are setting out this 10-year plan now is to give certainty and stability to the investment horizon, and we will protect that investment going forward.
My Lords, I will briefly go back to a subject I have raised several times with the Minister before—PPPs. I welcome pages 44 and 45 in the report, and I also share the interesting views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer and look forward to the report that is coming. I am content to leave the issues with the Treasury. Perhaps the Treasury might expand its vision a little bit wider and, when we come to review the future PPPs, we might think about involving the public in them and not limiting private investment simply to big capital. There is money around among the public. People are prepared to invest. We ought to be more open-minded about it and perhaps look at some of the experiences of the past. There will be money there for us and it will be committed.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberI am sorry, but it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
My Lords, I join the House in wishing the Minister a very happy birthday and many more of them ahead. I too welcome yesterday’s Statement. We feel as if we are turning the corner and starting to take a longer view, which we have not had expressed by politicians for quite some time. It is true that there are risks for us and, given the instability in the world, it is desirous that we are not too inflexible about how we look to change our minds as needs require it when circumstances change. I do not like to see us digging in too firmly in saying that we will not change this or that when circumstances may force it.
In looking at our tax system, investment is one of the ways in which we will see progress be made, and Statements will be made on that very shortly. One of the things the Government—and, indeed, all parties—ought to look at is the way we try to maximise opportunities for raising funds. It is high time that council tax was subject to a review. It is way out of touch with reality and is now being run very unfairly. I suggest to the Government that, as they look at wider tax reform, they look in particular at council tax and at changes to make it fairer and more productive in paying for these investments.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree very much with what my noble friend said to begin with about uncertainty. I think he was talking about the increasing global headwinds we face as a country when it comes to the economy and about the importance of stability; I completely agree with him. The IMF, for example, in its most recent report when it upgraded its forecasts for the UK economy, said that our fiscal strategy is striking a
“good balance between supporting growth and safeguarding fiscal sustainability”,
and that our
“Growth Mission focuses on the right areas to lift productivity”.
On spending, it concluded that our plans are “credible and growth-friendly”, and
“are expected to provide an economic boost over the medium term”.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the points my noble friend made on council tax towards the end of his question.
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords Chamber
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, but to be clear: we are not taxing it. We are recovering it through the tax system, which is a different policy from the one that she is describing.
Of the 12 million pensioners, how many are millionaires? Is it true that it is 3 million?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not have those numbers to hand, but I will see whether they exist. If they do, I will write to my noble friend.
(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords Chamber
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will have to check with my colleagues in MHCLG on that point, and I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord to answer it. On growth plans for the rest of England—and for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—outside of the city regions that we announced yesterday, there will be much more to say in the spending review next week, but I will write to him on this point.
My Lords, I welcome yesterday’s Statement. London is grinding to a halt while, hopefully, we are seeing the rest of the country improve its communications. The Mayor has recently made announcements about changes to the congestion charge. I know this is not my noble friend’s direct area of responsibility, but should we not review the possibility of extending the congestion charge to the western part of London? We are grinding to a halt, and it is time we did something fundamental to stop it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think that may be a question for the Mayor of London.
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberTo ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to implementing an updated public-private partnership model to attract capital investment and to open share ownership to more people.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are committed to working in partnership with the private sector to deliver the infrastructure that our country desperately needs. We will set out our approach to unlocking greater private investment in UK infrastructure in the 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will be published alongside the spending review in June.
My Lords, I am grateful for that response. I wonder whether I can persuade the Minister to move rather faster with the suggestion, which some of us have been pursuing, that we need to review the structure of the PPPs that we had under the previous Labour Government. We need to extend it so that we have wider participation of not just government departments but cities and mayors. On the other side of the fence, we need to extend the private side and give individual citizens the right to shares in these new ventures. Is the Minister prepared to meet a small group of us to talk in advance of the review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. As I say, the Government will publish a cross-cutting 10-year strategy for the UK’s social, economic and housing infrastructure in June, alongside the spending review. It will help to drive growth, deliver net zero and support improved public services by providing more coherence across different types of infrastructure than has been the case in the past. Of course, I am more than happy to meet my noble friend and the group he mentioned.
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords Chamber
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, I will not. The noble Baroness says it was the wrong tax rise; she has said that several times. She has never said what the right tax rise is, so I am not sure how she plans to fill the £22 billion black hole. She talks about growth forecasts; I notice that she did not mention that the Bank of England upgraded its growth forecast for the next year and the year after. She did not mention that the IMF now forecasts us to be the fastest-growing major European economy. She did not mention that the UK is now the second most attractive country in the world for inward investment—the first time we have been so for 28 years. We have still heard no alternative at all put forward by the Conservative Party: no alternative for dealing with the challenges that we face, no alternative for restoring economic stability and therefore no plan for driving economic growth.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that attracting capital investment is a way forward, in which we can get growth and have some optimism instead of all the pessimism that we keep hearing? Will he review the possibility that we should explore and bring in more private-public partnerships that will bring capital in from across the world, maybe even America? We might have PPPs attached to the NHS and find ways to do a trade deal with the Americans.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with what my noble friend says about business sentiment—increasing positive sentiment in the economy—and I agree with him about increasing investment in the economy. It would be nice to hear a bit more positive sentiment from the party opposite. I will read what Rain Newton-Smith from the CBI said in the aftermath of the Chancellor’s growth speech last week: businesses will welcome the Chancellor
“grasping decisions that have sat on the desk of government for too long”,
showing that we are serious about growth and prepared to take the tough decisions that are necessary.