National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 36, to which I have added my name. On Amendment 2, I do not need to add much to what has been said, other than that the disproportionate hit on part-time workers seems to me to be extraordinarily damaging. As has been said, very often these are incipient businesses that might grow to be full-time businesses. There are whole swathes of the economy, such as students, which nearly all of us have in our family, who depend on this kind of work to get them through their studies. So it is a significant impact, as has been said.

The hospitality industry has not just had five difficult years. I have personal knowledge of a number of hospitality businesses that did not survive Covid, and many that survived Covid but with a massive debt overhang that they are still trying to pay off. Add this particular measure on top of that and those that just managed to survive will now probably fail, and those that can hang in there will struggle to get themselves back into viability.

I have an amendment I shall speak to later about the impact of these taxes on the public sector in Scotland. In the private sector, there is a difference in hospitality business rates between Scotland and England. Although the way the business rates are determined is not exactly comparable, UKHospitality Scotland has done an analysis of businesses in Scotland in a comparable sector. It gives an example: a local pub, an average kind of pub, would pay £6,000 more in business rates, 66% more than an equivalent business in England. A town centre restaurant would pay almost £10,000 more, which is also 66% more, and a hotel would pay £26,000 more, which is 70% more than an equivalent business.

I am not here to apologise for or justify the measures of the Scottish Government, who obviously have not followed the UK Government in terms of business rate discounts—it would have been helpful if they had—but I challenge the Government to recognise that the combined activities of two Governments on businesses in Scotland is leaving many businesses in Scotland comparable to similar businesses all over the rest of the UK substantially disadvantaged compared with the rest. I do not believe the Government gave any consideration to that unintended consequence and they have not recognised that it means that the Scottish economy will be disproportionately hard hit by this.

I will throw one political grenade into the mix. It is fine to say that we have an SNP Government, but the majority of people in Scotland did not vote SNP and I think they are entitled to look to a UK Government to at least give some recognition that they are looking for an approach to their businesses that shows some appreciation and understanding that things are different north of the border. Just occasionally, it would be helpful if the UK Government acknowledged that.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before but I add, very briefly, my support to the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. I have spent a lifetime in the city helping businesses grow—funding them, looking after them and developing them. They are vulnerable throughout, but they are particularly vulnerable in their early stages, which is the point of the noble Lord’s amendment.

With 25 people or fewer, it is easy to forget just how difficult it is, and how persistent an effort is needed, to get a business going, keep it going and to eventually grow it, hopefully, to a great size where it will employ people and increase the prosperity of the country. It is our feedstock—this is where I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who served with me on a City regulatory body many years ago—and if you cut down the trees in any one year, those trees will never reappear. We shall have a smaller number of growing companies from the years when this proposal has its impact.

It is also surprising, when I hear debates in your Lordships’ House, how many Members cannot conceive of circumstances when the pay cheque will not turn up at the end of the month. A lifetime in public service insures you against that. But, if you run a business, you have to think every day about will happen at the end of the month. Will there be a call from the bank manager saying, “I’m very sorry, I’m not going to be able to meet your payroll”? When you have responsibility for other people, that ghastly pressure is increased by the sorts of measures the Government propose to take here.

I say to the Minister, very gently, that the phrase is: revenue is vanity, profit is stability, but cash is reality. In this Bill the Government are proposing to undermine the reality of the cash that is desperately needed by the very smallest among our companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 3, moved by my noble friend Lady Kramer and supported by my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and other amendments in this group, but I will not mention them so that we can speed through as quickly as possible and get to the vote. We discussed in some detail in Committee the plight of charities, with a view to moving an amendment of this nature at this point.

I have a plea around the simplification of the tax system. I think everyone would acknowledge that national insurance contributions will never be part of asking, “Would we start from here?”, and then simplifying the tax system. Perhaps there is culpability on these Benches: they were introduced by Lloyd George, but massively expanded by Clement Attlee, so I am looking at the Benches opposite to share a bit of the responsibility from some time ago.

Failure to retain charities at the current rate will cost the sector £1.4 billion in the next financial year according to the NCVO. This compounds levels of underfunding in the long term and threatens services for some of the most vulnerable in society. To take just one example, Homeless Link is a charity with 800 member organisations, all of which work on the front line of homelessness. It estimates that the national insurance changes alone could take between £50 million and £60 million out of the homelessness sector. That is peanuts when it comes to revenue raising but absolutely fundamental to services run by 800 different organisations.

Most charities do not function as profit-making businesses and cannot adapt to increased costs, as the private sector can, by putting up prices or recovering elsewhere. Instead, the increase in national insurance must be accounted for by cutting costs in staff, and therefore services to people in acute need, such as those who need a bed for the night. The Government’s very welcome objective to develop a cross-departmental homelessness strategy is undermined by this additional cost.

At Second Reading, the Minister defended the current UK tax regime for the charity sector, arguing that it is

“among the most generous of anywhere in the world”.—[Official Report, 6/1/25; col. 601.]

I ask the Minister to study with care the latest results of the Charities Aid Foundation’s World Giving Index, which has the UK now at number 22—its joint lowest position ever, having fallen out of the top 20 at the end of last year after a recent period of decline.

The charitable sector is a significant partner in many of this Government’s future plans. This change in national insurance directly harms charities and the people who they need to serve. We urge the Government to reconsider this additional financial burden.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 40, which is in my name. It asks for an impact assessment of this Bill on Scotland, because of the differences that have been identified.

The Government have said that they will compensate the public sector, but we are all waiting for the detail of how they will do it. A figure of £4.7 billion as the global sum has been mentioned, but not the detail. There is a concern that the structure of the public sector in Scotland is significantly different from that in England and that it may not be sufficient to sustain public services at even the current level in Scotland, where they ae struggling, as they are everywhere else. My own health board, Grampian, has had to absorb a £20 million charge just for this Bill, on top of a £75 million deficit that it is currently running. It is in a substantial crisis.

I have questions for the Minister. He will have seen the Fraser of Allander review of the impact; it may not be definitive but it is independent. It suggests that the impact is something around £550 million in Scotland. If one applied the normal rules of the Barnett formula, £4.7 billion would presumably give Scotland something between £400 million and £450 million. However, government officials in Scotland tell us that the Treasury has said the Barnett formula will transmit £300 million, or just over that. How can the Minister justify a £300 million transfer through the Barnett formula against a £4.7 billion overall budget for compensation?

More to the point, how will the Government establish the criteria for what level of compensation they will give to which kind of public bodies? If they do that, can they ensure that the same conditions that apply in England will follow through in Scotland, and that the money will go with them? All I am asking for is equality of treatment, not special treatment.

As I have said before, there is quite a lot wrong with what is going on in Scotland. The Scottish Government are not known for their efficiency in management; I am not trying to defend them and I do not think the UK Government should compensate them for their incompetence. However, I do not think that the public sector and the people of Scotland should suffer because of that, when an additional measure brought by the UK Government has added insult to injury or misery to misery.

Will the Minister acknowledge that, if he is talking about compensation of just over £300 million, that falls a long way short of the comparable impact, pound for pound, in Scotland compared with England? What are the criteria? Will they be applied fairly and consistently across the UK?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 9, which is in my name. I suspect that it may have been subject to pre-emption, along with Amendment 8. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is surprised, I am equally surprised that I think I agree with all of her remarks. That means that I would like to focus on Amendment 4, dealing with charity revenues of less than £1 million, which I believe is not subject to pre-emption.

According to the Charity Commission website, there are about 170,000 charities in the UK, with about £100 billion of income in aggregate and 1.3 million employees. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe wants us to concentrate on those charities with an annual revenue of below £1 million.

There is different terminology that can be used by the Charity Commission, because it talks about gross income. On average, charities’ donations and legacies are about one-third of their total income, as was the case with the Thames Hospice, which I described earlier. The rest of the income is grants, investments and so on. A charity with £1 million of revenue will probably raise only some £350,000 in donations. I calculate from the available information that the sums raised by charities with revenues of less than £1 million total some £12 billion, which is 12% of total charity income. But there are 162,000 charities with an income of under £1 million, which means that we are talking about 95% of all UK charities.

As for their spend on national insurance, it is hard to determine, because we do not know exactly how much they spend on employment. We do know how much they spend on total expenditure, which is some £12 billion. If we assume that 50% of that—it is a very generous assumption—is on employee costs, and if we assume a salary of around £25,000, because it is a low-paid sector, then my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment would impact only 240,000 people.

To try to answer the criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I calculated that my noble friend’s amendment would cost the Government around £480 million—half a billion pounds. Is the Minister going to tell us that he is not prepared to protect 95% of charities for just £500 million? Does he recognise my figure? If not, what is the cost of the amendment? I invite him to join us in pausing the hike until we work out what it is, so that we can then have a meaningful discussion.

I remind the Minister that in a speech to the civil society summit last year, hosted by Pro Bono Economics, Sir Keir Starmer promised to reset the relationship between civil society and government. Is this what he meant? He said that

“for too long, your voice has been ignored”.

I have read the full speech, and he also said,

“we know it’s people on the ground, people with skin in the game, who understand the problems best and have the best answers”.

He continued in his speech to civil society leaders, which largely rubbished Tory policies, by saying,

“let’s be honest, for too long, your voice has been ignored between the shouts of the market and the state”.

Are the Prime Minister and his Ministers listening now? Those leaders are calling for this national insurance hike to be dropped.

Why would the Government want to penalise 162,000 charities, where our fellow citizens give so much of their time freely, and in many cases their cash, simply for the betterment of fellow citizens at home and abroad? It is a shameful imposition.

Scottish Government: Devolved Competences

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I actually think that the joint committees are important and give a sort of discipline to business. Where I am with the noble Baroness is that it is actually important, on specific bits of policy, to work together with the devolved Administrations. Certainly, in the areas that I deal with, I really try to do that—with things like borders, for example; the country is borderless, so it is very important. We can always do better, but there are differences of view, and sometimes that complexity makes it hard, such as with statistics, which I was giving evidence on yesterday.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, Scotland has two Governments, both of which are dysfunctional and very unpopular north of the border. Will the Minister accept that what the people of Scotland would like is for each Government to accept their relative responsibilities, do them competently and not try to compete with each other to say how badly they are delivering for Scotland?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not recognise that as a description of the UK Government. I have tried to explain that we are taking a responsible approach. The UK Government make very large sums of money available to the Scottish Government—quite rightly—and it is for both countries to make sure that they are spending money well, in the interests of their citizens, in all sorts of different ways on which we have been touching today.

Devolved Authorities: Expenditure outwith Competences

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend. This is a live issue, because there was the example of a meeting between the Scottish First Minister and Turkish President Erdoğan with no FCDO official present. I regret that and think it contravenes the protocols, which are designed to ensure that a Minister within the UK lands is properly informed and is making the right points on such a sensitive area—and also reports back, so that we have a joined-up understanding of foreign affairs. Foreign affairs are a UK competence.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I return to the problems that the Scottish Government wish to be independent, pretend they are independent and then complain when they find that things they are trying to do do not conform to the devolution settlement, and that they are using UK Government premises overseas to promote their campaign for independence. Does this not have to be brought to a halt, and the division between what is devolved, what is reserved and what is shared clearly set out and enforced?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree that we need to consider the presence of Scottish Government offices in UK Government posts, but there is a case for having individual officials knowledgeable about Scotland engaged on issues such as fishing, where there is an important Scottish interest. I have seen that working well, so there is a balance here—but I agree with the general direction of the noble Lord’s comment.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Follow-up Report (European Affairs Committee)

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I echo all the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the committee, not only on a very good piece of work and on bringing so many disparate voices together but on providing a very valuable service to the House in detail and—I say to the Minister—to the Government, if they are prepared to address what is in it in detail. That is what has been provided and what the Government need to do.

To go back to the beginning of Brexit, it has been mentioned that we were promised unfettered access between the markets of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and frictionless trade. That was a lie from the start; that was not possible once we had left the single market and the customs union. The people who said that knew it perfectly well. So it was inevitable that there would be a problem and it was equally inevitable that Northern Ireland would be the focus of that problem. Unfortunately, it became subsumed in the bigger debate about Brexit, and the details of what Northern Ireland needed got overlooked to some extent.

As has been said, we all know that there is a real political divide, but businesses operating in Northern Ireland simply want clarity and the minimum amount of red tape that they can get away with. If there is to be red tape, they want to know what it is and how—indeed, whether—they can deal with it. That is where we have to get to. We know that the Windsor agreement does not get them there, but at least it sets the framework to try to help to achieve that. That will be achieved only if relations between the UK and the EU, and to some extent the UK and Ireland, remain on the basis of constructive engagement and developing trust, and if the relationship between Northern Ireland and the other components is based on a genuine desire to try to meet, wherever possible, the needs—not the political needs, but the economic, social and practical needs—of the people of Northern Ireland. That seems to be where we need to get to, and this is a really helpful process.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, in his speech, said that you never get a good deal if they know you want one. My question to him is: how are you going to get a deal if they know you do not want one? Where does that take you? That was how he seemed to approach it—as well as threatening to breach international law and bring the whole reputation of the country into disrepute. The reality is that trade is a bargain, and a bargain is achieved by negotiation and agreement. Every trade agreement requires concessions and give and take. We had that when we were inside the EU; we decided to leave, but we want to continue to engage, and if we want to continue to engage we will have to negotiate and compromise. We can tease each other about who got a better or a worse deal, but we will know nevertheless that it is a compromise and a deal and it cannot be perfect.

This debate has served a useful purpose to provide that degree of focus. Every speech has had real merit. I absolutely accept from the DUP Members, for example, that they can focus on all kinds of details—everybody can—that are not perfect or right and could have and should have been done better. However, I would plead with them not to use that as an excuse not to try to secure progress. Everybody here is making the point about the need to re-establish the Assembly and the Executive. I absolutely accept the situation in the past—the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, made the point that Sinn Féin kept the Assembly out of action for three years—and I can recall that I criticised that in this Chamber, because I did not think that it was justified, any more than I think what the DUP is doing is justified. Democracy requires people who are elected to participate in the process—and, my God, the people of Northern Ireland need it more than they have ever needed it, if these issues are going to be addressed.

I have a simple plea to the DUP: how long are you going to leave the people of Northern Ireland abandoned at a most critical time, economically, socially and politically, without leadership or engagement or the recognition that they depend on you? Indeed, the British Government are not going to engage properly if there is no one to engage with. It is a passionate plea and genuinely sincere. It does not mean that I do not recognise the difficulties, but they must know that they are getting towards the end of the road with regard to how long this process can continue.

To conclude on what I think has been a very good debate, the argument has been made that we all supported the protocol, but it was an improvement on nothing. Many of us knew that it was critical and said that it should be changed, but the Windsor Framework took it forward. It has not resolved it all, but this committee has identified where it has and has not and where it can be improved. That is a very practical piece of work; it is to be welcomed and the committee is to be highly commended.

Devolved Governments: Public Expenditure

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend that any wastage in government is extremely distressing, certainly to me. In October of last year, we reached an agreement with the Scottish Government to jointly commission an independent report covering the block grant adjustment arrangements. The independent report will inform a broader review of the Scottish Government’s fiscal framework later this year.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the Scottish Government have a Minister for consular affairs. Does the Minister believe that this is consistent with the delivery of devolution? Following up on the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would the Scottish Government not better serve the people of Scotland if they concentrated on protecting and delivering public services and developing a strong economy, instead of fiddling in a way that has had a disastrous effect on the economy and job losses?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, in 2005, the then Labour Government agreed to allow the Scottish Government to have international development involvement. To my knowledge, they are involved in three countries—Rwanda, Malawi and Zambia. I can only come back to my earlier point that it is for the Scottish electorate to decide whether that is a good use of public funds.

Devolved Administrations

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as a proud and passionate native of Scotland, my noble friend brings pertinent facts before your Lordships’ House. I cannot answer for the actions of the Scottish Government, but I say to them—and indeed to everybody—that now is the time not to stoke divisions but to focus on what unites the people of Scotland and all of us around the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, setting aside the anti-British obsession of the SNP, do the Government not recognise that post-Brexit legislation has left all the devolved Administrations concerned that the Government are taking powers back from them and are seeking to take United Kingdom decisions using English Ministers as the final buttress? Does he recognise that that approach is not acceptable and not consistent with his opening remarks?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords. I do understand that there have been rhetoric and statements about this. I repeat what I said to the noble Baroness opposite: the Government are deeply committed to strengthening the union. Part of that, obviously, is showing full and appropriate respect to our partners in the devolved Administrations. I think that, when your Lordships come to see the outcome, it will be understood that the new intergovernment relations protocol and approaches will fully reflect that mutual respect.

Covid-19: Co-ordination with Devolved Administrations

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the concern of the noble Lord and many citizens of the United Kingdom about the future and how we move forward. The Prime Minister made a considered statement last week and will make another statement on Monday about the next steps forward as he sees them. Throughout the crisis we have been more aligned than we are apart. There have been scores of calls between the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the First Ministers in the three Administrations.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

Ideally, devolution allows for divergence across the nations and co-operation to deal with common interests and issues. That has been demonstrated throughout the pandemic, but Great Britain is an island with open borders and right now Scotland has the highest infection rate in Europe. The two main hospitals in the Grampian health board area—the Aberdeen Royal Infirmary and Dr Gray’s Hospital in Elgin—along with Raigmore Hospital in Inverness are on black alert dealing with only urgent and emergency cases as a result of catch-up for non-Covid, increasing Covid admissions and staff shortages because of Covid and isolation rules. Will Ministers across Governments work to ensure that as we move to lift restrictions we do so in a co-ordinated way that avoids the chaos and confusion that might otherwise occur?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there has been extraordinary support from the United Kingdom Government to the devolved Administrations, Scotland not least, both financial and practical. Indeed, I believe the UK Government have provided around 55% of tests in Scotland. However, I return to the fundamental point. I shall not comment on the performance of the devolved Administrations as I do not think that is appropriate, but they have devolved authority to act on public health within their borders.

UK Government Union Capability

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for initiating this important and very timely debate. I also want to show appreciation for the very helpful review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, which was too long delayed in publication. I thank noble Lords who have made a wide variety of extremely good speeches, for which the time constraint was not adequate.

It is clear that, if the UK is to have a constructive future, a fundamental reset of relations between nations, Governments and communities is needed. Brexit and the domestic legislation that followed, and is following, has put severe strain on the settlements. As a member of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee—along with four other speakers in this debate, as has been mentioned—I believe the approach being taken in this process in most cases offers a constructive way of taking policy issues forward. In particular, it seeks to allow divergence, encourage constructive engagement, avoid disputes and, where they do arise, to set out mechanisms—although as yet untested—that are fair and at least try to be objective and independent. However, the default position remains that UK Ministers have the last word. In addition, the policy areas covered by common frameworks are restricted to those areas previously under EU rules designated at the outset of the process. These can be overridden by new legislation being enacted post Brexit, ranging from the trade agreement to the internal market Act, Agriculture Act, Environment Bill and Professional Qualifications Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, called for a dedicated Cabinet Minister for the union, supported by a Cabinet committee and a Permanent Secretary. Although the noble Lord did not say so, the Prime Minister appointing himself to that role does not hack it. Not only is he personally and politically unsuited but, more fundamentally, he as Prime Minister has far too many other responsibilities to deliver on it. However, the appointment of Sue Gray to the new position of Permanent Secretary for the union is certainly welcome.

The proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, for a new UK intergovernmental council to replace the Joint Ministerial Committee, which has been largely sidelined, makes sense. It is clear that the understanding of and commitment to devolution varies enormously across departments, so the suggestion that career development in the Civil Service should be conditional on having spent time in a role in the devolved Administrations—and vice versa for those working in the devolved Administrations—should be developed further.

Although there is scope for debate as to whether the UK should head towards a federal or quasi-federal constitutional settlement, there is nevertheless a clear opportunity to learn from the experience of federal countries. At the very least, there needs to be clarity on where powers lie—not only what is reserved and what is devolved but, perhaps most importantly, what is shared. There also needs to be a respectable process for any change in the apportionment of powers and the resolution of disputes.

This debate needs to be put into its current political context. Brexit is far from done. UK trade with the EU is declining rapidly, with none of the emerging trade agreements offering anything close to significant alternatives. Northern Ireland is subsiding into renewed and dangerous political and economic uncertainty. Although the threat of independence in Wales falls short of confrontation, the breakdown of trust between the Welsh Government and the Senedd is a manifestation of political storm clouds.

Scotland is stalemated, with pro-independence and anti-independence sentiment deadlocked. Whatever the SNP’s bluster, advancing the case for independence —or even for another referendum—is nowhere in view and beyond credible. The UK Government should resist the temptation just to say no. It may suit the short-term political advantage of the Tories and the SNP to entrench this deadlock, but it is no good at all for the people of Scotland caught between them. There must be a constructive appeal to engage in co-operation and joint working.

The changes made so far, and the strengthening of the UK Government’s presence in the devolved Administrations, need to set the foundation for a new and positive relationship, not just window dressing. The UK Government are understandably keen to ensure that the impact of UK-wide spending within the devolved Administrations is clear and understood. The city deals have been positive examples of joint working on funding involving Governments, local authorities and the private sector. Replacing UK structural funds with a UK shared prosperity fund presents another opportunity for the UK Government to be seen to be spending in the devolved areas—but only if it is done in co-operation with, not over the heads of, the devolved Administrations.

During Covid, billions of pounds have been poured into economic support through furlough, business loans and other measures. In Scotland, it is in excess of £10 billion. However, spending by the UK Government should be used not to patronise or demean but to show the value of co-operation and sharing. It requires transparency by all levels of government. By the same token, it is not helpful for the people they serve if devolved Governments misrepresent the relationship or use it to further the political argument. How many more years will voters in Scotland put up with being told that problems cannot be addressed this side of independence, which is not on the horizon and would take years even in the best-case scenario?

Covid has shown up the best and worst aspects of devolution and the relationships. The devolved Administrations have had the freedom to determine their own way through lockdown. However, the science is common and, for the most part, the differences have been cosmetic or timescale-related. The mismanagement of border controls, especially in relation to the delta variant, has been monumentally incompetent. The attempt to restrict movement between Scotland and England has degenerated to the absurd, with an unenforceable ban on travel to Manchester while unrestricted travel to London is allowed for Scottish football fans, with adverse consequences. The development, procurement and rollout of vaccines has been a positive demonstration of the benefits of the United Kingdom and co-operative working. The economic capacity of the UK has been of benefit to all our citizens.

Given that Scotland is not leaving the UK any time soon, and may never leave, there is surely an obligation to show how the Scottish and UK Governments can co-operate for the greater good of the citizens of Scotland, rather than endlessly picking fights at the expense of today’s priorities. All Governments need to show understanding of the different needs of communities. Too much centralisation has undermined effective local decision-making. Nationalism, all kinds of nationalism, is weakening the UK and its constituent parts and preventing it presenting its best face to the world. The UK Government are risking the UK’s reputation for consistency and trustworthiness. The irreconcilable conflict over the Northern Ireland border risks the Belfast agreement, yet the constant denigration of all things British by SNP politicians makes it harder to find the appropriate and, dare I say, co-operative approach to decision-making.

Trying to drive policy centrally for differing local circumstances is proving problematic. Balancing the expectations of red wall and blue wall constituencies is changing the political landscape. The tectonic plates are not just moving but crumbling. We desperately need a new settlement from all sides, and that requires more localism, less nationalism and more internationalism. It needs politicians of all shades to show integrity and contrition. Above all, it requires leadership. Is it there? Time will tell.

Financial Services Bill

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for raising these issues. All three of the amendments that she has tabled are important. They are to do with the FCA and PRA regulators, and I agree with them. However, I am particularly concerned about the FCA and its linkage to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the FOS, and how that is reported to Parliament. There seems to me a particular concern in this area.

I will take just one key case history. The leading company in the home-collected credit market has been around for 150 years. It has basically produced a credit product of choice for working-class communities for all that time. It is small-scale. It is now suffering from regulatory indifference. There is a model here for home-collected credit that works. It is flexible and forgiving and is the right design for consumers on a low income. The FCA has traditionally supported it and given it a tick all along the line. To put what has happened bluntly, the Financial Ombudsman Service has ignored the understanding of this market, which is part of the consumer credit loan market, and lumped it all together.

The net result is that the FOS is basically taking a summary judgment approach to complaints involving all HCC firms. It is therefore faced with a huge volume of complaints manufactured by the claims management companies. To get round this huge volume, instead of playing its statutory role and looking at each claim on its merits, it is taking a short cut. It is saying, “Okay, we’ll look at 25 properly; anything above that, we won’t”—and so it goes on. That is quite wrong—so wrong that there must be some parliamentary means of ensuring that the FCA carries out its role in relation to what the FOS should be doing, in the knowledge, of course, that the FOS is an independent body. So there is a lack of linkage somewhere in this, which should be another area for parliamentary scrutiny.

That was only a shorthand case history, but it demonstrates that what is behind the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has great value. I shall think very seriously about supporting them, depending on what my noble friend on the Front Bench chooses to say in his closing words.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am happy to speak briefly to the amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Bowles. I am grateful to her and to my noble friend Lord Sharkey for their expertise both in drafting the amendments and in explaining in detail why it is important for the Government to consider the points behind them.

As a member of the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee and, until last month, of the EU Services Sub-Committee, for the last four years, I have been involved with scrutinising the financial services sector. Nobody should doubt the importance of this sector to the UK economy; it is worth reminding people of that, even though this is a technical amendment. I will not rehearse the statistics on the share of the economy, jobs, tax revenues, the balance of payments and so on. Apart from that, it is also the lubricant of the whole economy, and when it goes wrong, a few people make a fortune but most people suffer—some severely.

The regulation of the sector has been subject to the scrutiny of this House and, importantly, as has already been mentioned, the resources of the European Parliament, with British MEPs taking the lead in many instances. My noble friend Lady Bowles was one of the most distinguished of them in that department. Yet the financial crash was the consequence of light-touch regulation and there are concerns that this Bill may be creating a framework for similar mistakes. Certainly, without effective accountability to Parliament there is a danger that regulators might—intentionally, but more likely otherwise—allow financial services to be regulated in ways that could put individuals’ pensions and savings at risk and prejudice the viability of businesses, especially SMEs.

Outside the European Union, it is more important than ever that financial services regulation is effectively scrutinised. Without the resources of the European Parliament, we need a dedicated committee, with the necessary resources and expert support, to ensure that regulation is understood and fit for purpose. We all know that the Government want flexibility in the post-Brexit age in order to compete globally. Of course, that is not wrong in principle, and the sector repeatedly argues that its ability to do so will depend on transparent and effective regulation, because that is what gives confidence to the users of financial services. Get it wrong and, as we stand alone, it could have disastrous consequences.

I also support the argument that requiring financial regulators to engage with Parliament as part of the process of implementing regulation is not obstructive. It actually serves the regulators’ and the Government’s interests much better, because it ensures a better understanding of their purpose and helps highlight whether or not there may be consequences which had not been thought through and which could have negative implications for the sector.

By positive contrast, if the Government, regulators and Parliament can work together as partners, we can consolidate and enhance our world lead. We have been one of the most important financial sectors in the world and we all want that to remain the case, but we have created a challenging and difficult circumstance for ourselves. If we get this wrong, we could suffer a great deal. We need to get it right and it is important that the Government acknowledge that these amendments are designed to support the regulators and the Government in ensuring that our financial sector still has the confidence of the world market it seeks to serve, and is not subject to a closed, unconsulted, unscrutinised form of regulation that, without intention—or maybe with intention, if some Ministers wish to push it—could compromise the integrity of the sector. That will serve nobody’s interests, and I hope the Government recognise that.

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. We are having difficulties with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We shall move to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.

Budget Statement

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, a radio ad currently running in Scotland says, “If you are producing shortbread in the Highlands or prime beef in Aberdeenshire, the UK Government can help you find markets in Toronto or Tokyo.” That could have been done years ago, but what has happened to the established markets in Toulouse, Turin or Toledo?

Facing the combined impact of Brexit and the pandemic, I was looking for a Budget that put recovery first. As we look forward to an easing of lockdown and an uptick in economic activity, should we not be doing more to give our young people the education and skills training that they need? Should we not be making climate change and the digital economy the drivers of recovery?

In Scotland, four sectors are of key importance. Our food and drink industry is creative and dynamic but has been hit hard by lockdown and new frictions in traditional export markets. Fishing has been betrayed. Of course we should seek new markets, but not at the expense of established markets at home and across the EU. What measures do the Government propose?

The hospitality sector has been dealt a body blow and will struggle to survive and rebuild. When will hotels reopen and what will the Government do as furlough ends to enable them, and pubs and restaurants, to recoup losses and thrive?

In our strong financial services sector, jobs and assets are already being relocated out of not just Scotland but the UK. How will the Government ensure that we retain and grow Scottish jobs in the sector?

I live in the north-east of Scotland, which has made a huge contribution to the UK economy over the last 50 years. We have a wealth of resource and expertise of global importance. As the oil price recovers, the sector will pick up, but the industry is fully aware of the drive towards net-zero carbon and committed to using its capital and expertise to contribute to the transition. I welcome the support secured for the sector in the UK and Scottish Government Budgets but urge both Governments to work together with local authorities and the industry to secure jobs and investment for the future, especially in north-east Scotland, which has seen substantial job losses in the past year. What is the Government’s strategy for these key sectors?