Unemployment Figures

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Haskel]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made as to whether unemployment figures provide an accurate picture of the situation in the labour market.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, no specific assessment has been made. DWP monitors a range of labour market statistics to understand the labour market situation, including the overall employment rate and economic inactivity rate as well as unemployment. The unemployment rate is accurate and independently produced by the Office for National Statistics. We welcome the fact that unemployment is at its lowest level in 50 years, but we are also expanding the help and opportunities for the growing number of economically inactive people.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but the statistics do not properly identify the approximately 9 million inactive people—yes, 9 million—who are ready and willing to work but are unable to do so because of caring responsibilities, mental or physical illness, because they have been let down by back-to-work programmes and failed by the Government or because of changes in the world of work. Since the pandemic, the number has grown by 640,000, whereas in other similar economies the number is declining. What are the Government doing to properly identify and address this inactivity? With low unemployment and many job vacancies, they should be doing this as part of the growth agenda.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord on the points he raises and the fact that there are 9 million economically inactive people. We have a breakdown of the groups that they fall in. We know that 1.7 million are looking after family at home, and 2.5 million are people with sickness issues. That is why we are increasing our efforts to increase the support we give. The noble Lord points out that these people have very complex issues; there may be more than one or two reasons for them not working. I am very pleased that we were able to look at the noble Lord’s son’s report on this and, in fact, give it to the Secretary of State, because she is very keen to read and understand it.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 11th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 207 in my name. My noble friend Lord Lansley has Amendment 35 in this group but is unable to be with us in Committee this week. At his request, with the leave of the Committee, I shall be speaking to his amendments on both Committee days this week.

At Second Reading, I noted that the definition of light-touch contracts is extremely wide since it concerns the supply of services of any kind, provided that they have been specified by regulations under Clause 8(2). It is my understanding that light-touch contracts are currently for health and social care services—indeed, that is implied by the reference to those services in Clause 8(4)(b). The wide scope given by the lack of restriction in Clause 8(2) means that, notwithstanding the “have regards” in Clause 8(4), it would be possible, for example, for the Government to specify legal services, accountancy services or any other kind of services. The “have regards” are simply not an effective curtailment of the very wide power in Clause 8(2).

My Amendment 30 seeks to confine light-touch contracts to health or social care services provided to individuals, on the basis that, it is my understanding, that is how they are used at the moment. However, if the Government believe that there should be a wider concept than that, they should put that in the Bill. Open-ended regulation-making powers should not be necessary and are not desirable.

My noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 35 would add another “have regard” to Clause 8(4): whether suppliers of light-touch services consist of small and medium-sized enterprises and few larger enterprises. The other three “have regards” seem to be designed to reflect the current scope of light-touch contracts: they do not generally involve overseas suppliers, they are generally for the benefit of individuals and they involve suppliers that are close to service recipients. Another feature of current service provision is the presence of small and medium-sized service providers in both the private sector and the voluntary sector.

If the supplier market features large suppliers, including overseas ones, there really is no good policy reason for the light-touch regime to be applied; the full-fat version of the procurement rules should be in place for them. A light-touch contract should not become a convenient escape from the procurement regime for contracting authorities. They should be focused on the supplier end of the market, where a lighter regime would be appropriate.

Amendment 207 is rather different. It tries to tease out the Government’s intentions for contracts under Clause 33, which covers the reservation of certain light-touch contracts to public sector mutuals. A qualifying public sector mutual is one that has not been awarded a contract in the previous three years, under Clause 33(5). So if I am a public sector mutual and I am awarded a contract on 1 January 2022, that means that I may be excluded from tenders under subsection (2) for the three years until 31 December 2024, and under subsection (3) a contracting authority must exclude me from tenders assessed under Clause 18 until the same date—that is, the end of 2024.

If my earlier contract is for five years, which is the maximum allowed under Clause 33(1), I think that I would not be excludable from retendering when the contract came up for renewal, because the retendering process would almost certainly have started after the end of December 2024. If, however, my initial contract was for three years, I would almost inevitably be excluded from bidding for its renewal because the retendering process would by definition have to start before the end of December 2024.

My amendment proposes changing the period in subsection (5) from three years to five, but that is for probing purposes. I do not understand whether the Government are trying to allow or prohibit public sector mutuals from carrying out consecutive contracts, if indeed they were awarded them under a competition. It seems bizarre that a shorter contract could prohibit the public sector mutual from retendering while a long one would not.

In addition, I am less than clear on how contract award and commencement dates are supposed to interact, given that a contract could be awarded some considerable time before it is intended to commence. I know that my noble friend the Minister has Amendment 206 to Clause 33, which is not in this group and would slightly alter its wording, but I do not think that that will answer the basic question that I have posed. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

Elections Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 17th March 2022 Lords Chamber

The TUC has met the Bill team, and so has TULO, the organisation of trade unions that are affiliated to the Labour Party. They have expressed their concerns. I hope that the Minister can acknowledge those concerns, even if this was not his intent with this clause, and come up with ways that they can be properly addressed, so that we are not opening the door to a further possibility of attacks on democratic organisations such as trade unions, which are incredibly tightly regulated at the moment. Their political funds are regulated, their structures are regulated through the certification officer, and they must file annual returns which include all their political fund expenditure. I hope that the Minister can address our concerns and those of the trade union movement. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 44, because of pre-emption.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak on whether Clause 25 should stand part, which is grouped with these amendments in an attempt to improve Clause 25. I will begin with some remarks about Part 4 as we have so far examined it.

I came away from Tuesday’s Committee much more worried about the coherence of this Bill than I had been until then. We learned that Clause 18 is there primarily to reverse the court’s judgment in the Thanet election case, although the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her reply, attempted to persuade us that it does not really change the law; in which case, the clause is not necessary. We learned that Clause 22 was entirely about the threat to our electoral system posed by a body called Advance Together, which, on examination, fought five seats in the 2019 election and gained in total just over 400 votes. We did not learn the purpose of Clause 24. Indeed, after the Minister’s explanation, I and others were more puzzled about the purpose of this clause than we had been before we started, and worried as to whether there is some underhand objective that we have not yet uncovered.

When reading through Section 88 of PPERA last night, which defines “recognised third parties”, I could find no reference to unincorporated associations as recognised third parties. Can the Minister or his staff kindly inform me before Report whether the inclusion of unincorporated associations in Clause 24 is intended to bring these bodies within this category for the first time or whether they were already covered in existing legislation? I also found in the briefing a reference to permitting only overseas-based unincorporated associations consisting entirely of UK citizens, which is not the wording in the Government’s text.

The Minister gave us to believe that the small group of former Liberal Democrats who formed Advance Together, and then merged it into Renew, represented a major threat to the UK, but that foreign money and foreign interference, most evidently from Russia, do not present any serious threat. The Minister suggested that the paragraphs in the ISC’s Russia report and elsewhere that flag up the seriousness of that threat are little more than “innuendo”. It is astonishing that he can suggest that Russian interference should not be a serious concern to us as we consider this Bill—at this point above all.

Now we have Clause 25, which gives full power to the Secretary of State to add or remove descriptions of third parties from the approved list. I am grateful to the Minister for offering us a government amendment to delete the power to

“make such amendments of this Part as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,

but this is only because the Government consider that PPERA already provides sufficient authority. As I wade through sections of PPERA to understand the provisions of this Bill, with the occasional reference to the earlier Representation of the People Act, I am repeatedly reminded of the CSPL’s declaration in its report on election finance that there is an “unarguable” case in favour of consolidating and simplifying electoral law.

The Minister must recognise, as he struggles to explain and justify this Bill clause by clause, that it totally fails to consolidate or simplify. The Electoral Commission’s briefing for Second Reading stated, accurately, that the changes in Part 4, including these clauses,

“would add new requirements to laws which many campaigners have said are already complex and hard to understand. The added complexity of these changes could deter some from campaigning at elections ... Voters could therefore ... hear from a narrower range of sources.”

It therefore falls to the Minister to justify the inclusion of Clause 25 and the powers that it gives to the Secretary State, and to explain, as we keep asking, what problem it is intended to resolve. If he cannot persuade us that it is necessary, we shall ask for it to be removed.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Court of Justice of the European Union

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is right, as always. It is good to negotiate calmly and find the best possible agreements between two parties. That applies to both sides. I urge the EU not to overplay the significance of using Article 16, as perhaps it has in the last couple of weeks. It is a legitimate provision within the protocol which we are discussing, and can as such be used if the situation arises.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Impact on UK Internal Market

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the processes that goods undergo when they enter Northern Ireland are those that, in our view, are required by the protocol, which, of course, has direct effect in UK law in many respects through the withdrawal Act. People would not want us to proceed in any way other than is consistent with those legal obligations. That is what we are required to do; the difficulty is that it is not consistent with social and economic stability in Northern Ireland.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, as we have failed to reach the end of the list on the previous two Questions, I implore noble Lords to keep their questions to half a minute, as recommended by the Procedure Committee. That will allow my noble friend to answer even more questions than he is already doing.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

2nd reading & Order of Commitment discharged & 3rd reading
Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his brief introduction to the Bill.

The key promise of what he has described as the permanent new role for the Government, as expressed in the Bill and accompanying documentation, can be described as the introduction of the health and social care levy, which will mean that, between 2019 and 2025, the NHS England budget can increase by 3.9% per year in real terms. That is slightly above the long-run average of 3.6% in UK health spending. However, it is well above the 1.2% per year seen in the Conservative austerity years from 2010 to 2019, in which the share of GDP spent on the NHS fell year after year, leaving the NHS severely weakened when the pandemic struck. However, even this new higher rate of investment in the NHS will be well below the average of 6% per year seen under the Governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

It is useful to start from the fact that the Bill consists of three semi-independent strands woven together. First, there is the introduction of a new hypothecated tax: the health and social care levy. Secondly, there is the predominant alignment of the base on which the new tax is charged with the present tax base of national insurance contributions. I say “predominant” because the levy is also to be funded by the extension of NICs to those over 65 and by the dividend tax promised in the Budget later this month. Therefore the tax base is potentially malleable: it need not be NICs and it is not entirely NICs even at the beginning. Thirdly, there is the transitional arrangement of raising overall taxation in 2022-23 via the one-year increase in NICs—the transitional year.

To assess the true impact of the Bill it will be helpful to deal with these three strands of the Bill in order, beginning with the first strand: the new hypothecated tax. It is well known that hypothecation is a dirty word in the Treasury. National insurance contributions, for example, are not allocated uniquely to national insurance, and the road tax is not used for the upkeep of roads. Yet here we have a substantial increase in taxation that is, we are assured, pre-allocated to health and social care. Given the historic experience with other fictional hypothecation, it is reasonable to ask: for how long will this last? It is noticeable that Clause 4 allows the Treasury to use the levy to make different provision for different purposes, not necessarily the purpose described by the noble Lord. The only conclusion can be that this is a grudging and perhaps temporary hypothecation—a temporary uplift in NHS spending sufficient to buy political time as NHS waiting lists reach all-time highs. Can the Minister make it crystal clear: is this hypothecation here to stay or is it a temporary political expedient?

Once introduced, taxes tend to rise, so does the Minister expect an expanded role for this new hypothecated funding of health and social care? Or does the Minister agree with the assessment of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that

“In the short run, the additional revenues may be spent on boosting spending on health and social care. In the longer-run, the hypothecation is an illusion”?


If for now we accept the Government’s commitment to hypothecation, what is the rationale for the second strand: basing the levy predominantly on the NICs base rather than any other tax base? It is, after all, obvious that this will solely impact individuals whose income is mainly made up of earnings or profits, as opposed to other forms of income such as property income, pension income or savings.

When the Minister replies, will he explain why the levy does not cover income from buy-to-let properties? Why does the levy target the 17% of pensioners who work, while allowing wealthy pensioners receiving income from other sources to escape scot free? And why does the levy fall on low-paid workers?

Given the evident unfairness, I find the Government’s attempts to justify the distributional impact of the levy in the document entitled Illustrative Analysis of the Impact of “Building Back Better: Our Plan for Health and Social Care” a disturbing insight into Tory instincts where the NHS is concerned.

It is customary for the Treasury to accompany fiscal changes with an analysis of the distributional consequences of those changes: the impact on the poorest 10%, the next poorest 10%, and each decile up to the wealthiest 10%. Here, for the first time, the Treasury presents the impact of the levy on individual social groups together with what it believes will be the consequential spending on healthcare from which that social group would benefit. In other words, payment of the levy by a given group and the provision of healthcare to that group are linked. It is but a short step from this approach to the idea that payment for healthcare and receipt of healthcare should be linked—a negation of the fundamental character of our NHS, in which funding and the delivery of care have never, before this document, been linked. I hope that when the Minister sums up, he will disown the document.

I turn to the third strand: the impact of the increase in NICs and the dividend tax from their introduction in April next year. The policy paper published by HMRC on 9 September sketches—the appropriate word for something that is very limited—the various impacts that the Government have considered. For example, HMRC refers to the impact on households:

“There may be an impact on family formation, stability or breakdown as individuals, who are currently just about managing financially, will see their disposable income reduce.”


This is not the Opposition speaking, it is HMRC. On business, the Government tell us:

“This measure is expected to have a significant impact on over 1.6 million employers who will be required to introduce this change.”


On the economy as a whole, HMRC says:

“The measure is anticipated to have a significant macroeconomic impact, with consequences including but not limited to for earnings, inflation and company profits. Behavioural effects are likely to be large, and these will include decisions around whether to incorporate or not, and business decisions around wage bills and recruitment.”


That is all rather serious stuff. Will the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to offset the impact on those who HMRC says are just about managing financially and who will see their disposable income reduced? Is he content to serve in a Government who wilfully introduce extra taxation that they acknowledge will hit those who are just about managing while at the same time cutting universal credit? Is he proud to be doing this to those who are suffering in-work poverty?

What of the impact on those 1.6 million employers—many of whom, as HMRC says, may well be reassessing business decisions on wage bills and recruitment? Will the Minister tell us exactly what the Government anticipate will be the scale of the impact on recruitment? Does he agree with the assessment of the Federation of Small Businesses that the levy will result in 50,000 fewer jobs being created? Does he agree with the Institute of Directors, a well-known left-wing organisation, which argues that:

“This is an extraordinary time to be adding additional burden to business and the cost of employing staff”?


Where are we to find the Government’s assessment of the impact of these measures on earnings, inflation and company profits? We have been offered none. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has again commented that:

“Following a rise in income tax of £8 billion and in corporation tax of £17 billion in the March Budget… the Chancellor has announced a further tax rise of £14 billion… which if delivered will raise the tax burden in the UK to the highest-ever sustained level.”


When the economy is struggling to recover from the pandemic, when the furlough scheme has ended, when business support has ended, leaving small and medium-sized companies with debt-laden balance sheets, when output is barely back to pre-pandemic levels and is hampered by serious supply chain problems and fuel shortages, the Government raise the tax burden to the highest-ever sustained level. Does the Minister consider that in this critical recovery period, the introduction of a levy that will have “significant macroeconomic impact” is quite such a good idea?

Finally, we come to the most important question of all: will it work? A fundamental issue must be the division of revenues between the NHS and the social care providers. As has been made clear, spending will be heavily weighted towards the NHS in the first three years, and then perhaps there will be some crumbs for social care. How can the Minister really pretend that this is the plan that the Prime Minister promised two years ago? To quote the Institute for Fiscal Studies once again:

“While the precise path for spending—and hence for the availability and quality of care—is unclear, it is clear that the extra funding will not be sufficient to reverse the cuts in the numbers receiving care seen during the 2010s”—


the great austerity period.

“Thus, while more people will become entitled to financial support as a result of the reforms planned”,


as the Minister told us,

“many people with care needs not considered severe enough will continue to miss out.”

In fact, the focus of what has been announced is almost entirely on changing who pays for care rather than directly addressing the growing problem that too few people are getting the care they need in the first place.

In his introduction to Build Back Better: Our Plan for Health and Social Care, the Prime Minister writes:

“We will bring the health and the social care systems more closely together”.


Over the weekend, there have been suggestions in the press that the Government are planning to create a national care service, integrated in some way with the NHS. If this is so, will the Minister tell the House what will be the role of the levy? Will it be raised further for what will be an expensive operation? Will hypothecation be extended?

I am afraid that the Bill is a typical example of ill-thought-through legislation, rushed through Parliament to spare the Prime Minister political embarrassment. If this was a plan ready more than two years ago, why the need for fast-track legislation? The explanation given by the Government is, I am afraid, disingenuous:

“The legislation is required to be in place for the 2022-23 tax year, which starts on 6 April 2022. The increase in National Insurance rates for that year will require changes to be made to the systems of employers and HMRC … it is important for both those employers and HMRC to have as much time as possible to implement the changes.”


All this amounts to saying that, even though the Government have announced the policy, with great fanfare, uncertainty about whether it will be put into effect persists, halting action until the relevant legislation is passed. In other words, a Government with a majority of 80 in the House of Commons are uncertain whether they can pass a money Bill. Pull the other one.

The rush was clearly designed to limit the time for proper scrutiny of the Bill and its many implications—scrutiny that your Lordships’ House can provide this afternoon. With that proper scrutiny, it will be evident that the provisions in the Bill are ill-thought-through and unfair, and will have potentially serious macroeconomic consequences.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

Covid-19 (Public Services Committee Report)

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out, your Lordships’ committee wrote this paper some nine months ago—sufficient time for events to prove the committee right or wrong. Events have proved it overwhelmingly right and the Government’s response totally inadequate.

For example, the paper speaks of overcentralised delivery of public services. Thanks to a report earlier this week by the National Audit Office, we are able to compare the centralised procurement in England, using companies without experience of PPE—but, incidentally, with connections to the Conservative Party—and companies new to test and trace, with the Welsh procurement, where local authorities carrying out this work used trusted and experienced suppliers. Not surprisingly, the result was that the cost per head of the test and trace and PPE in Wales was half the cost in England, with no decline in quality and service. As a result, Welsh businesses were supported more generously. In Wales there were winners all round. Surely one of the first lessons learned must be the need for careful analysis of whether services are best delivered from the centre or locally.



The committee calls for a more flexible approach to sharing data. Surely, there is no better example of this than the speed at which an effective vaccine was produced and distributed. Years of research, financed and carried out in the public sector, produced the revolutionary RNA system of vaccines, which enabled the private sector to produce and distribute a Covid vaccine within months, instead of the years previously needed. It was this that enabled the Government quickly to vaccinate a large part of the population. Surely, the lesson learned here is to encourage this co-operation as a matter of course, not as an exception when there is a crisis.

The report also calls for radical improvement in the way government communicates and co-operates with local service providers. This means that the Government must provide clarity to local authorities and businesses. We are currently suffering exactly from this, because the 10-day stay-at-home alerts are advisory rather than legal obligations. Also, there is now inconsistency over wearing masks and social distancing, caused by abrogating responsibility to local authorities, businesses and each one of us individually. Only yesterday, the British Chambers of Commerce said that companies were struggling to make sense of which staff were defined as critical workers and so were eligible to continue working when pinged by the NHS app or by test and trace.

By asking us to make sensible decisions without clear guidance and without providing the tools to make these decisions, the Government are guilty not only of creating uncertainty by mixed messaging but of further endangering public health. Indeed, this lack of clarity has become a defining feature of this Government. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, of which I am a member, almost weekly takes the Government to task over lack of clarity in one or more of their instruments. These examples show that the committee is absolutely right to call on the Government to make public services more resilient and more able to withstand any future crises. As my noble friend Baroness Armstrong explained in her excellent opening speech, this lack of resilience has taken a huge toll on human life and caused enormous physical and psychological damage—as well as damage to the economy. The committee is right: we must learn the lessons, so that we are better prepared if it happens again.

Public Procurement (International Trade Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is a difficult time. We are faced with difficult political, social and economic problems, including the pandemic, Brexit, climate change and a sense that the economy is failing many people. We keep hearing from the Government about their ambition to build a better future by building in more resilience so as not to return to the same world as we knew it. They can do this through legislation. I would have thought that this is so pressing that no legislative opportunity would be lost. After all, it is actions that count, not words. In this regard, the Government have a big chasm to cross.

It seems to me that, with these regulations, the Government have an opportunity to act. Admittedly, the regulations deal only with public procurement, but it is a start. They deal with our place in the world of public procurement after Brexit and confirm that we will stick to the same rules as we did when we were members of the European Union regarding transparency, non-discrimination and the equal treatment of all suppliers and contractors in countries that, like us, are members of the Agreement on Government Procurement.

When we were members of the European Union, we did well in winning contracts for public procurement but, as with the rest of our European business, we are being disadvantaged by increased bureaucracy. Could we not use these regulations to help us win public procurement contracts in Europe with the same minimal bureaucracy as we had when we were members? After all, we are agreeing to the same rules as we had before we left. This would be one small step towards cutting bureaucracy when dealing with our European neighbours.

Could we not do better? Could we not introduce an element of sustainability in these public procurement deals? This element is being introduced more and more. It is becoming a feature of financial markets with ESG investment and the Bank of England is monitoring the record of our banks and major companies on sustainability by having them report on responsible investment. This is all part of the developing relationship between business and government to achieve social objectives by arguing for resilience over efficiency. Indeed, this was mentioned at the CBI climate conference yesterday.

In a way, we have set a precedent for this with British Standard 95009, which was introduced in 2019. This standard, which is becoming more and more widely used, specifies how an organisation can demonstrate that it is a suitable provider for the public sector. Could we not extend this standard to the UK’s legal obligations under the Agreement on Government Procurement so as to include sustainability and other social and economic objectives?

I understand from what the Minister said that further regulations are being drafted to give effect to our procurement obligations under WTO rules. If it is too late to include these points in these regulations, can they be considered for those in preparation? The Government have come in for a lot of criticism recently, being accused of bias in the awarding of public contracts. Enlarging these regulations in this way could be a way of deflecting that criticism.

Budget Statement

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as well as welcoming the maiden speakers, I welcome the Chancellor’s short-term methods to deal with the immediate effects of the pandemic on jobs and businesses. But that is the easy part. As other noble Lords have mentioned, the harder part is to deal with our longer-term needs of productivity and growth, Brexit and our future trading relationships.

Where there was some action, it seemed to be prompted by a rather old-fashioned view of business; we tried freeports and closed them. Modern firms are defined by capability, much of it resulting from intangible investment. This is how we developed the new vaccines. In this modern world, fiscal allowances are less of a consideration. Capital expenditure and investment is, more and more, investment in transport, water, power and systems of payments. But it has to go hand in hand with investment in education, welfare and public health. This is what helps to create the work which builds value, improves productivity and raises GDP—working together in this modern economy. The Budget hardly recognised this. The Budget was also weak on decarbonisation. Freezing fuel duty does not help achieve carbon neutrality, and there was silence on carbon border taxes.

In spite of today’s advancement, there is a distinct lack of trade strategy, and industrial strategy was hardly mentioned. Where there was a strategy—such as levelling up—it was clearly political, not economic, as the methodology published yesterday demonstrated. This is a short-term Budget neglecting our long-term problems.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I strongly agree with my noble friend’s amendment. In practice, under the CRaG Act, we cannot stop the treaty; we can only delay it. However, the Leader’s upbeat assessment in her opening speech was entirely misplaced. It is a thin deal, with no properly thought-through impact assessment and on such an important matter—a serious omission.

However, like many others, I shall vote in favour because, as they have said, the alternative of no deal is worse. I do this not because the agreement facilitates business trade—it does not; unlike any other trade deal, it creates more non-tariff barriers and more bureaucracy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, explained—but because it provides a period of certainty, enabling businesses to plan and, hopefully, invest and adapt to our new status outside the EU, while at the same time coping with this terrible pandemic.

Yes, I shall vote in favour, because the Government’s mismanagement is threatening the integrity of our union. The Government have given practically no opportunity for the devolved Administrations to give this matter proper consideration, yet unity is of interest to us all.

I shall vote in favour in the hope that it will make our departure less acrimonious and will create a better atmosphere to settle the many outstanding issues, such as the future of our services sector, which the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and many others mentioned, where we have a healthy surplus. We must settle the outstanding non-trading aspects of our relationship, which are so important—academic, scientific, educational, cultural, data sharing, security, climate change and emissions trading. We will have to learn how to operate the 30-odd specialist committees that set standards, arbitrate and settle disputes and with which we will have to work—otherwise they will operate at our disadvantage.

Meanwhile, we must deal with the pandemic, the double-dip recession, high unemployment, public and private debt and the inevitable change in taxation. We will need a Government who do not indulge in wishful thinking about sovereignty and who will put our relationship with the EU on a much better footing than this.