National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 38, as written, is econometrically impossible. This cannot be done unless we have further specification of what is to be done. For example, are we to look at the effect of these changes assuming that the Budget had not changed or to look at their effect taking into account the consequential effects of the Budget which were also dependent on the national insurance changes?

Then, there were other tax changes that took place at the time which were also dependent on the national insurance changes. Are they to be taken into account or not? At the moment, the amendment does not tell us. Any serious economist faced with this would say, “Sorry, I can’t do this unless you tell me what I have to take as the underlying conditions”.

Amendment 38 is seriously defective and cannot really be taken seriously as it stands because it simply does not specify the underlying circumstances within which the particular consequences of the changes in this Bill are to be assessed. Without that framework, it is simply not possible to do in any way—or, if you like, anybody could produce any result they like by assuming different background circumstances. So, I am afraid that Amendment 38 is underspecified and, as a piece of serious econometrics, impossible, because the framework is not specified for the amount of information required to perform the studies.

On Amendment 42, I was very struck by the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that the Government face up to their responsibilities. It would be really helpful if the Conservative Party faced up to the damage it has done to the British economy over the past 14 years and to the disaster it has inflicted on the British people, which the Labour Party is now desperately trying to repair in very difficult circumstances indeed.

Once again, the issue of the impact of employment and productivity depends on a whole series of other factors. Are they to be taken into account or not? How is the particular effect of the national insurance change to be examined? If they were independent, then you could do that by saying that the national insurance change has no relationship to other changes taking place in the economy and therefore we can isolate it. But that is not true; the national insurance change has direct effects on the other components of the Budget and has effects which are interdependent. Without specifying the framework in which this amendment is to be considered, it is a false exercise. You could sit down, make any assumptions you like and get any result you like, to be frank.

Although it would be very interesting to perform this exercise, I am afraid that these amendments are so defective that they cannot actually give the guidance as to the exercise to be performed. Therefore, it is entirely inappropriate for amendments such as these to be in the Bill.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I have to confess a smidgen of support for the amendments in this group—but not nearly enough to make me vote for them. I am going to complain about a different lack of information that has been presented to this House in relation to the Bill.

The point is that it is a contribution Bill—a contribution to the National Insurance Fund. I pursue a somewhat quixotic and lonely quest to persuade people of the importance of the National Insurance Fund, the whole point of which is that it receives contributions, has reserves and pays benefits. Somewhat oddly, simultaneous to discussions of the money coming in, in the earlier stages of Report, there was a discussion in Grand Committee of the money going out. My complaint is that there has been no discussion of the state of the National Insurance Fund. I am very much in favour of such a discussion because it is a crucial element of our welfare state.

The problem is that the information is available. I have it in my hand: the Report by the Government Actuary on: The Draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025; and The Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025. Noble Lords might ask, “What’s that got to do with the Bill?” It says on page 7:

“This report also includes the expected effect on the Fund of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill”.


This is information germane to our current discussions, but at no stage—I am sorry to complain to my noble friend the Minister—has this been adequately, or in any sense, discussed as part of an overall consideration about the state of the National Insurance Fund. That is my complaint, and I have got it off my chest.

Stock Market: First-time Investors

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, for introducing this short debate and I look forward to hearing other speakers.

I have been reading the Financial Times for nigh on 60 years and, for many years, one of the highlights was the columns written by the noble Lord about investing on the stock market. The headline on his last column—which, unfortunately, has now ceased—was:

“The first ISA millionaire says there are only two essentials in investing: common sense and patience”.


Clearly, he knows what he is talking about, but there is a problem: an inherent conflict is involved.

I am going to put words into the mouth of the noble Lord now but, as I understand it, what the noble Lord, Lord Lee, advocates for investing is patience, resilience during market downturns and an unwavering commitment to high-quality companies, reinforcing the belief that wealth is built over time rather than through frequent trading.

That is clearly right, but it is not easily transferable. Investing is a skill that, I suspect, is not readily available to large numbers of people in our country. I am not against people investing in the stock market; if people choose to do so with the necessary knowledge and information, that is good. However, the Government should not put themselves in the position of, in effect, proffering financial advice. That is not the Government’s job because, while the potential gains are real, so are the risks of the downside.

Everyone needs to start from somewhere, and training and education are clearly important, but the key is that we need people to understand that, while investing in the stock market offers opportunities to grow your money and build financial security, the risks are just as real. There are so many stumbling points at which people will lose out. The previous debate was about risk; another key to successful investment is understanding the risks.

I return to the point that I made initially, which is exemplified by the noble Lord’s own career: the need to understand that investing takes time. There is no quick fix to successful investment on the stock market. It is not a shortcut to wealth; it requires patience, learning and discipline.

Inheritance Tax, National Insurance and VAT

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

We need to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for introducing this debate. I admire the passion and clarity of the arguments he presented; unfortunately, I just do not agree. I think the Labour Government’s adjustment—the Motion says removal, but of course it is not being removed; it is being cut back—of APR for inheritance tax, the increase in national insurance contributions and the extension of VAT to private school fees are all steps towards greater economic fairness in funding for public services.

We had a debate on the school fees issue, in which I spoke and I do not wish to repeat what I said there. We are having an apparently endless debate in the Committee on the national insurance contributions Bill, and I will save my remarks on that for that arena. But I will add that the point that the money will be spent on improved public services—providing jobs and buying in services from suppliers—is always ignored by the opponents of the increase in national insurance contributions. Perhaps my noble friend could say something about the positive impact that will have on the economy, as reflected in the figures from the OBR.

I am running out of time, but I will say something about inheritance tax. I do not give advice on inheritance tax, but I do read the financial pages. Clearly, until this whole debate took place, the general view was that inheritance tax was essentially voluntary; you paid it only if you did not arrange your affairs appropriately. Now is not the time to provide advice but, given succession planning and insurance, the problems can be overcome.

Economic Growth

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for initiating this debate, which has been interesting although not always enlightening. I was tempted to talk about pensions, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, but we will have other opportunities to debate that. I will simply say that it is a lot more complicated than that.

I speak as an unreconstructed Keynesian with a side order of Joan Robinson—I will come back to that in a minute—but, first, it is preposterous for those on the other side to lecture us on the UK’s poor economic performance. They were in power for the last 14 years. As explained by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who is not in his place, they cannot shift the blame to anyone else. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats could take a little share of the blame, but they may be reformed sinners. They also try to claim that the ups and downs of short-term statistics over the last few weeks is in some form the fault of this Government. Well, to use the tired analogy, it is like the supertanker heading for the rocks. They steered it towards the rocks, we are steering it away and the move is starting.

I mentioned Joan Robinson because I want to quote from a book by the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, about the women who made modern economics. She states:

“Keynesian economics as developed by Robinson is still relevant for policymakers today, and I would argue that the poor performance of the UK economy since 2010 owes a lot to the failure to heed the lessons of Keynesian economics. When David Cameron and George Osborne became prime minister and chancellor respectively in 2010, they embarked on a programme of austerity that went against everything that Keynes (and Robinson) would have advised”.


Subsequently, she says:

“Welfare spending was cut, public sector wages frozen, departmental budgets for everything except the NHS cut”.


She concludes by pointing out:

“The economic recovery which was picking up steam at the end of 2009 and into 2010 was stopped in its tracks. Economic growth stalled and productivity tumbled”.


That is the record of 14 years of Conservative Government. They come here today and lecture us on the failure of the present Government. Let us see. I hope my noble friend will be able to assure us that we will not be adopting the policies of 2010 from the coalition and that the policies we introduce will achieve the economic growth that we require.

I conclude with a final comment on the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew—not the substance; I look forward to his joining us on the Economic Affairs Committee and some interesting debates. He said, in effect, that 10,000 millionaires were leaving the UK each year. Well, I have to admit that I am a millionaire. I live in central London. I have a house that is worth more than £1 million. Using the tired old trope of millionaires is meaningless. A vast number of millionaires have been created. I suspect that we are going back to the time of our childhood, when £1 million was a lot of money. It is not any more.

Civil Servants: Compulsory Office Attendance

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

This has been an interesting debate, and we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for introducing the subject and giving us an opportunity to discuss these issues. In fact, it is interesting to follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, because, in preparation for this debate, I was re-reading the debates that took place in this House on the Factories Act 1847, which introduced a 10-hour day. There were plenty of speakers in this Chamber who opposed the revolutionary concept that people—in that particular Act, it was only women and children—should not have to work for more than 10 hours in a day. Clearly, ideas on what is the right way of working move on.

As well as hybrid working, there is the issue of the four-day week. It is interesting that PCS is seeking agreements in other areas of employment for a four-day week. These standards and expectations move on. The key—in some ways, what the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said is correct—is to deliver the job in hand. There is no shibboleth that we should have about actual attendance; that in itself is not important. The issue is the delivery of the job in hand. It is quite clear, and it has not really been spelled out in the debate, that the Land Registry has failed to deliver the job in hand: there is a massive backlog.

I will not pretend that I totally understand why there has been such difficulty, but, clearly, getting into an argument with the staff does not seem to be a great way of solving the problem. Forcing your staff to undertake a ballot for industrial action, where 84% of the staff believe they should take action short of a strike in order to defend their working conditions, seems to me an indictment of the management rather than of the union.

I would just correct the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on one point. There is no strike planned from 21 January; there is action short of a strike, where the staff concerned will refuse to do work outside of their allotted grade and to fill in time for absent colleagues. There is no strike at this stage, although 69%—again, a relatively high figure—voted for the potential of strike action. However, the decision has not yet been made on whether that will take place.

We can see here the need to understand the position of the union. Why are we here with the union? It is not an arbitrary decision on its part. In fact, it should be emphasised that the industrial action relates not just to hybrid working but to the issue of how work is assessed and who does the work. The workforce there are extremely concerned that people are, in effect, being asked to act up, presumably because of the delays and shortfalls, without the necessary training that they need to undertake that work.

Overall, we can see here a pattern of management—other speakers emphasised the importance of good management—failing to deliver the job. Whether that is an issue of lack of resources is difficult to tell from outside. The key issue is leaving it to the people involved—the management and the unions—to undertake the proper collective bargaining to arrive at a satisfactory solution.

Climate Agenda

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I welcome this debate and look forward to the other speakers and the debate that will take place between them. In particular, I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead.

I will not pursue the specific points that were made in the introductory speech. I will use the limited time available to me to highlight some excellent and important work that has been undertaken on climate change by the actuarial profession. I declare my interest as a member of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries as entered in the register. Climate change is an issue to which actuaries are devoting increasing attention. What happens in the future is intrinsic to the work of actuaries, hence the risks inherent in climate change are an essential element in the work that we do. It is already built into our professional standards. We are, in an important sense, risk scientists, able to uncover uncomfortable possibilities involving the risks we face, to which mainstream debates struggle to give sufficient weight.

I do not have enough time to go through all the arguments, but I trust my noble friend the Minister will follow up the information and perhaps even organise a meeting at which they can be explored at greater length. In summary, work undertaken by the profession in the report it produced last year, The Emperor’s New Climate Scenarios, identified that many of the models used to predict economic damage from the hothouse world we face have been too optimistic. Actuaries are saying that the models are not sufficiently accurate for us to place sufficient weight on them. They underestimate the rate at which the Earth is warming, hence carbon budgets based on those estimates are no longer applicable.

More recent work by the profession has identified how close we are to the risk of real problems and how they should be taken into account when making our decisions on policy. The key document here is the institute’s report from March this year, written in conjunction with Exeter University, Climate Scorpion—The Sting is in the Tail. The point made in the title is that the models currently used fail adequately to take into account what are called “tail risks”: the problems that appear towards the end of the period that is being assessed. The risky outcomes of climate change are those in the tail end of the models that are being used.

In short, the message is that we need to give greater weight in our assessment to worst-case scenarios. They need to be taken into account when making policy on climate change. This is essential, given our growing yet precarious lack of knowledge about extreme climate risk and, crucially, the range of tipping points that we face. For example, we have to treat the 1.5 degrees centigrade limit as a physical limit, not a political target. Too often the long-term impacts of climate change are described in terms of central estimates, when rule number one of risk assessment is to focus on the worst case. This subsequent note by actuaries makes it clear, first, that current energy policies are not sufficient to meet the Paris Agreement goals, that an overshoot of the 1.5 degrees centigrade threshold is now more likely than in the past, and that the rate of global warming was accelerating in 2023. In fact, the rate of acceleration was accelerating. We are going faster towards these tipping point risks.

Secondly, there are material risks associated with a failure to meet those goals, with the risk of triggering multiple climate tipping points and a potential tipping cascade. We must understand that a failure to meet the target does not mean that things will be a bit worse; we must take more seriously the fact that passing one of the tipping points will result in catastrophe.

I am therefore concerned about the Answer that my noble friend the Minister gave yesterday to the Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referring to AMOC, the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; at school we may have referred to it as the Gulf Stream drift, but it is now AMOC. The collapse of AMOC undoubtedly presents existential—an overused word, but in this case it is meaningful—risks to food production and water availability. Saying “It’s okay so far, and there are a range of views” is not an adequate response to the risks that we face.

The actuarial profession is taking these risks seriously. There are reports by practitioners who understand the nature of risks and how to adapt policy to those risks. I hope the Government will accept the information they are being provided with and adapt their policies to reflect these new dangers.