National Insurance: GDP
Lord Livermore Excerpts(4 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Altrincham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the increase in National Insurance contributions for employers on gross domestic product growth.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the £22 billion black hole left by the—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government meant we had to make very difficult decisions to repair the public finances, rebuild public services and restore economic stability. Following the Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised up its growth forecasts for the next two years, as has the Bank of England. The OECD now expects the UK to be the fastest-growing European G7 economy. The OBR has also said that there will be significant increase in growth as a result of the Budget over the longer term.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I wish the Minister a happy Christmas, even with the reminder of the schwarzes Loch.
Memories of Christmas past and the story of A Christmas Carol remind us that extracting the most amount of money from a business can have surprising consequences. In this case, can the Minister comment on whether increasing employment costs will lead to an increase in prices or a reduction in jobs, and can he specifically comment for us on the impact on the hospice sector?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I wish the noble Lord a merry Christmas and a happy New Year in return. As I said, we did have to clear up the mess that we inherited, and that did mean taking some very difficult decisions. I of course understand and respect the legitimate concerns that have been raised, and we have consistently acknowledged that there will be wider impacts as a result of the decisions that we have taken. But I do genuinely say that not to act and not to repair the public finances and restore economic stability was simply not an option. As I have said, let us be clear: following the Budget, the OBR, the Bank of England and the OECD have all revised up their growth forecasts.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, a report in 2021 by Skills for Care calculated that adult social care alone contributed some £70 billion to the economy and that:
“Sustained growth in adult social care will boost local economies via the induced and indirect effects”—
and this was especially in northern and Midland regions. Does the Minister understand that the ongoing lack of investment in social care, combined with new burdens—notably the increase in employers’ NICs—could put this growth into reverse? Will the Minister make to his Government the economic case for exempting the care sector from increased employer NICs?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness’s consistent focus on the importance of social care. The answer to her last question is no, but the Government are providing at least £600 million of new grant funding for social care in 2025-26, as part of the broader estimated real-terms uplift to core local government spending power of approximately 3.2%.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the drop in job vacancies in November at the steepest rate since the pandemic is not only bad news for economic growth but reflects very poorly on both the run-up to the Budget and the Budget itself—in particular, raising employers’ national insurance contributions while increasing the minimum wage at three times the rate of inflation? Is this not a recipe for job destruction rather than job creation?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Well, no. The OBR has been very clear that the number of people in employment will increase by 1.2 million over the course of this Parliament. As I said before, we had to take some very difficult decisions to clear up the mess that we inherited. I would simply ask the noble Lord and other noble Lords what their alternative is to the course of action that we took? Are they seriously saying that we should not have repaired the public finances? Are they seriously saying that we should not have restored economic stability? Quite frankly, that is the path that the Liz Truss mini-Budget took. We saw what happened then: she crashed the economy and working people are still paying the price today.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, in the 12 months leading up to the general election, the previous Government, in reducing national insurance on employees by 4p, actually gave away £20 billion and that there has been no discernible improvement in economic activity as a result? Is not this entirely their fault and not ours?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that the actions taken by the previous Government were consistent with the actions of a Government who had a total lack of regard to the stability of the public finances—which is exactly why we ended up with a £22 billion hole in those public finances because, although they willed the ends, they never willed the means.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister respond to the question from my noble friend on the Front Bench about the impact of national insurance contributions on the care sector, and specifically on hospices?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the Government are providing at least £600 million of new grant funding for social care in 2025-26.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, colleagues in all parts of the House will have received representations on a scheme drawn up to help disabled children get to school, which is being undermined and will probably have to close down as a result of this increase in national insurance payments. Was that sort of scheme considered by the Government, or was it not considered at all before this decision was taken?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am not aware of the specific scheme that the noble Lord raises, but I will happily look into it and I shall write to him on it.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Given the ever-increasing demands for more and more public expenditure which we listen to every day of the week in this House, will the Minister consider presenting a form of debate for the House whereby we can look to try to extend the area in which tax might be raised to meet those public expenditure demands? Could he also look at the possibility that we may increase national insurance contribution returns by extending national insurance contributions beyond the state retirement age, as we now have 1.5 million people working beyond that age?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The question of which debates the House has is not a matter for me—I think that is somewhat above my pay grade—but my noble friend is absolutely correct to say that we hear consistent demands from the party opposite for more and more spending, but they never seem to be willing to tell us exactly where the funds for that will come from. Of course, that is exactly why we ended up with a £22 billion black hole in the public finances: because they never took the difficult decisions to pay for any of their promises.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I may only have an economics degree but, none the less, that makes me an economist in the way things are currently. As such, the OBR has made it clear there is no £22 billion black hole, which is why there is the same response from this side of the House. But what is clear is that £40 billion has been taken from the private sector to the public sector. Companies have to respond to that. Their only choices are either to increase prices, which they are, to reduce wage increases, which they are, or to reduce investment in jobs and other capital items. As a result, of course, the PMI is at its lowest level since 2009 and, within 24 hours of the Budget, the gilts went up 40 basis points. Can the Minister explain that and can he also please address the issue of care homes? I am involved in a charitable care home which has received a £1.5 million extra bill. We do not know how we are going to pay that bill. I will not name the care home, but I will take this opportunity to wish the Minister a happy Hanukkah.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his last comment and I obviously say the same to him. I am also grateful to him for raising the £22 billion black hole again. He is possibly the only Member of this House who mentions it more often than I do and he will be absolutely aware of the outcome of the OBR’s review. It conducted a review into a meeting it had with the Treasury on 8 February, when the Government were obliged under the law to disclose all unfunded pressure against the reserve. The OBR’s review has established that, at that point, the Government concealed £9.5 billion. The OBR made 10 recommendations to stop this ever happening again, which this Government have accepted in full. But, of course, the previous Government still had five more months left in office and they continued to amass unfunded commitment after unfunded commitment that they did not disclose. By July, records show that that had reached £22 billion. The noble Lord asked a number of subsequent questions and I simply ask him: is he seriously saying that we should not have repaired the public finances? Is that his serious contention? That is absolutely what the Liz Truss mini-Budget did and we saw exactly how that ended up.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(5 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the draft regulations and orders laid before the House on 6 and 11 November be approved.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 December.
Short Selling Regulations 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Short Selling Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, in moving this instrument, I shall speak also to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ring-fenced Bodies, Core Activities, Excluded Activities and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Order 2024 and the Short Selling Regulations 2024. Noble Lords may be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised the ring-fencing and short selling regulations as instruments of interest in its secondary legislation report, published last month.
The regulations being introduced today will ensure effective, proportionate regulation for the financial services sector in three ways: first, by reforming the ring-fencing regime to be more flexible while upholding financial stability safeguards; secondly, by creating a new framework for the regulation of short selling; and, thirdly, by enabling better supervision and enforcement of designated activities under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.
I will first address the reforms to the ring-fencing regime for banks. As noble Lords will know, ring-fencing was introduced following the global financial crisis, on the recommendation of the Independent Commission on Banking, and came into full force in 2019. It requires large complex banks to separate the services that they provide to households and small and medium enterprises from investment banking activity.
In 2022, an independent statutory review of the regime recommended updates to ensure that it operates as intended and is proportionate. This statutory instrument improves the regime and implements changes from the review. The reforms that it contains will improve competition in the banking sector, reduce costs and support economic growth. They have been developed with the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is content that they also maintain appropriate financial stability protections.
The reforms will ensure that, in future, only the largest and most complex banks are subject to the regime, with two key changes. The first of these is an increase in the primary deposit threshold—the amount of core deposits a bank can hold before it is required to ring-fence—from £25 billion to £35 billion. This accounts for growth in the deposit base and other relevant economic indicators since ring-fencing was introduced, and supports competition. The second is the introduction of a new secondary threshold that exempts retail-focused banking groups from the regime where investment banking activity accounts for less than 10% of common equity tier 1 capital.
This statutory instrument also makes changes to the way in which banks within the regime can operate. It introduces measures to encourage more investment by ring-fenced banks in UK small and medium enterprises and to reduce the compliance burden associated with the regime. It also creates significant new flexibilities to allow ring-fenced banks to operate globally, subject to Prudential Regulation Authority rules, as well as to provide a wider range of goods and services to their customers.
I turn now to the Short Selling Regulations 2024. Short selling is the practice of selling a security that is borrowed or not owned by the seller with the intention of buying it back later at a lower price to make a profit. Short selling plays a role in the proper functioning of financial markets. It provides essential liquidity to markets, which drives investment in British companies; it helps drive economic growth; and it helps ensure that investors pay the right price when investing in shares.
This statutory instrument introduces a more streamlined UK short selling regime, which focuses on equities rather than both equities and sovereign debt. The new regime also includes a reformed public disclosure regime for short selling to ensure that there is transparency over short selling activity, without the issues identified with the current regime through the 2022 call for evidence.
There can, however, be risks associated with short selling. As such, it is important for the Financial Conduct Authority to have the tools necessary to monitor short selling activity effectively and to intervene. This statutory instrument provides the Financial Conduct Authority with broad rule-making powers in relation to short selling. This will allow the Financial Conduct Authority, in effect, to oversee short selling in UK markets. It will also mean that the UK’s short selling rules can be adapted and updated by the Financial Conduct Authority in a more agile way in the future—for example, to better adapt to new global standards or to take account of market innovation and new business models.
This instrument also retains the Financial Conduct Authority’s powers to intervene in short selling activity in UK markets in exceptional circumstances—an important feature of the current regime.
Finally, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations 2024 give the Financial Conduct Authority the broad rule-making power for short selling that I have just mentioned. The new short selling regime operates under the designated activities regime introduced into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.
The designated activities regime allows the Treasury to designate certain activities to be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority without the requirement for those carrying on the activities to become full authorised persons, such as banks or insurers. This enables proportionate regulation of activities where it would be inappropriate to require full authorisation.
The designated activities supervision and enforcement regulations enable the Financial Conduct Authority to supervise and enforce rules that it makes under the designated activities regime. They do this by extending the Financial Conduct Authority’s existing supervision and enforcement powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, so that they can be used in relation to designated activities, even where those carrying out the activities are not authorised persons. The extension of these powers applies, in the first instance, to designated activities covered by the Consumer Composite Investments (Designated Activities) Regulations 2024 and the Short Selling Regulations 2024. This will enable effective supervision of the regimes that those regulations introduce.
In closing, these SIs ensure that our financial services industry is subject to a rule book that is fit for purpose, more proportionate and tailored to UK markets. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, first I declare my interests in financial services, as in the register—just in case. I will speak to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Designated Activities) (Supervision and Enforcement) Regulations and then to the Short Selling Regulations.
The set of rules and provisions under which the FCA can give directions is important. Every time something is the subject of such a direction or supervisory action, there is an opportunity to go to a tribunal. I wonder whether the Minister has any statistics, from looking at the FCA’s present powers and at when tribunals can be invoked, on how frequent that is. I am trying to get at one of the things that has irritated me, which, as the Minister knows, is that the FCA seems quite slow to respond when something is going on in the market. One’s instinct, if we know that something is going wrong, is to want quick action. These provisions allow that, but they could always be subject to challenge. So how might that interfere? The question is a little theoretical, but is anything already being done in that way with which we might compare it? I realise that that information might not be to hand; if it is not, I would be happy to have a letter.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to address these three significant pieces of legislation, which collectively aim to refine and enhance the regulation of our financial services sector. The measures come at a pivotal time for not only our financial services industry but the broader economy, as we navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by our post-Brexit regulatory autonomy.
My overall concern is that we are moving too slowly and too modestly to reduce the constraints that existed in the EU regime, and to encourage the competition and dynamism that we need for growth. This means that the US financial services industry and the industry in newer markets, such as Singapore, are eroding our prime position despite our dual advantage of time zone and the English language. Questions have been asked about the effectiveness of our stock market; indeed, that was highlighted today by the reaction to the Canal+ listing in London, which, obviously, we all welcomed. We look forward to debating the reforms announced in the Mansion House speech.
In the light of all this, the instruments demand careful scrutiny. I will also follow the sequence on the Order Paper. The first measure under consideration deals with the supervision and enforcement of designated activities. This legislation builds on the regulatory framework of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, empowering regulators to oversee specific activities that pose systemic or consumer risks. From our perspective, this is a necessary and prudent step. By focusing regulatory attention on designated activities rather than institutions alone, we can ensure that oversight remains targeted and proportionate.
Yet it is vital that this power is exercised judiciously. Overzealous enforcement could stifle innovation and deter smaller players and start-ups from entering the market at all. We would like to see a regulatory approach that provides clarity and certainty, enabling businesses to thrive while protecting consumers and market integrity. We also want to keep compliance costs down for business, especially smaller business. Historically, that has not always been the way of the financial regulators—nor, I am afraid to say, of the Treasury. Does the Minister agree that financial regulation should be more careful about the costs that it imposes? I know from the Mansion House speech that the Chancellor wants to be more competitive; I would like to see that reflected in financial regulation.
Incidentally, I was surprised to see this in paragraph 9.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“The government does not generally assess successful enforcement action—such as fines levied after a breach of rules—as a cost to firms”.
From my experience, enforcement can be very costly to a firm: in legal fees, to fight any unfairness and possible reputational damage; in diversion of management time and talent; and in finding money from tight budgets for any fine. That is a good reason for a firm to comply with the established rules but it is also a reason for our regulators to work hard, in order to make compliance with the law easy, and not to judge themselves on the amount of fines they levy.
There is a related point on which I would very much welcome a response. The Minister may be aware of the huge concerns raised by the financial services sector about the FCA’s proposals earlier this year to name and shame firms involved in FCA enforcement action. It is consulting again, I am glad to say, on modified proposals. Can the Minister say whether the FCA intends to apply these new rules to the persons who are within the designated activities regime, which is at issue today, rather than, or as well as, the authorised persons regime? I know that the Chancellor, like her predecessor, has expressed concerns about naming and shaming. Clearly, we need to tread with great care in this area.
I look forward to hearing the answers to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, about tribunals and speed. I should like to say that her grasp of technical aspects of financial services law is extremely helpful to this Committee in the scrutiny of complex SIs such as these; we owe her a great deal. However, I have to say, I am not sure that I completely agree with her on FCA objectives, as I think that responsible growth and dynamism need also to come through in the way the FCA behaves.
That brings me to the second measure, which addresses short selling—an activity that has long been a point of contention in financial markets. Short selling, when responsibly undertaken, contributes to market liquidity and price discovery, as the Minister explained. Personally, I would have been more radical in moving away from the EU regulation, and perhaps in giving the FCA narrower rule-making powers. However, the proposed regulations seek to establish a robust framework for managing the risks of short selling while preserving its legitimate role, for example in times of crisis; I think that “exceptional circumstances” was the term the Minister used.
Moreover, on public disclosure, I welcome the move to a list of securities that are within the scope of the rules—this is in paragraph 5.11 of the second SI’s Explanatory Memorandum—rather than having a list of shares the FCA considered to be exempt. This will be clearer and easier. However, I urge the Government to ensure that the reporting and compliance burdens on market participants arising from this new instrument remain proportionate. Excessive red tape hinders the competitiveness of our financial markets, and I believe that we still have too much of it.
I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that I, too, have learned a lot from history. She mentioned what I think she called “casino banking” but, as a former bank non-executive director—long after the financial crisis—I can vouch for the thoroughness of the checks that are made on personnel with responsibilities. My only concern is that this might be a less leisurely process because, obviously, personnel changes are often needed to run organisations well.
The third and final measure relates to amendments to the ring-fencing framework established in the wake of the global financial crisis. Ring-fencing was designed to protect retail banking operations from the risks associated with investment banking. Although this principle remains sound, the financial landscape has evolved considerably since the original provisions were enacted.
The proposed amendments rightly seek to introduce greater flexibility into the ring-fencing regime. This is a sensible response to changing market dynamics and the need for regulatory frameworks to evolve. Having said that, I think that increasing the limit from £25 billion to just £35 billion is timid, especially given recent inflation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I would like the Minister to remind the Grand Committee which of our banks will need to be ring-fenced going forward and to name some of those that will escape and be able to grow and diversify, both here and overseas, more easily.
In other respects, I say to the Minister and his officials that the Explanatory Memorandum and de minimis assessment on this instrument were very thorough and helpful.
As Conservatives, we understand the critical importance of maintaining the UK’s status as a global financial hub. This requires not only robust regulatory frameworks but a willingness to adapt and innovate in response to new challenges and opportunities, such as AI. I urge the Government to continue the processes of dealing with retained EU law and of engaging with industry stakeholders in order to ensure that domestic measures are implemented effectively and without unnecessary burdens or delays. In doing so, it should be possible to foster a competitive financial services sector that drives economic growth and innovation, creates jobs and enhances our nation’s global standing.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken—specifically, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe—for their comments and questions and for, as others have observed, the extraordinary level of expertise that they bring to this debate and, as a result, the level of scrutiny that they are able to provide. I apologise for speaking to the instruments in an order other than that on the Order Paper.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, began by focusing on the designated activities SI. She asked about the direction power. The designated activities regime provides a power of direction to the Financial Conduct Authority. The Treasury can, by regulations, switch on that direction power for the Financial Conduct Authority’s supervision of any given designated activity. This statutory instrument sets out additional procedure for how that power may be exercised, but it does not create or switch on the direction power itself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, also asked for some statistics on the frequency of tribunals. I will write to her on that, as she requested. If she does not mind, I will also write to her on her second question, which was about the differences in the power of direction between CCIs and short selling.
The noble Baroness then went on to focus on the short selling SI. She asked how the views of consumers were considered. These reforms were informed by extensive industry engagement, taking into account views from a wide range of market participants, including consumers. The new UK regime will ensure that the regulation works effectively to protect against the risks of short selling while improving UK competitiveness.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Can I ask the Minister for clarification? It would seem that, if individual entities are disclosing their net short position, it is possible for an investor to understand whether the price is being affected by one institution that is making a very big play or by a series of institutions that are making a similar play. That is important information, and I have no idea how you can get it once everything is aggregated —unless I have misunderstood all of this completely, which is perfectly possible.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Since I am going to write to the noble Baroness on those other two points, it is probably best that I write to her on that one, so that we can be absolutely clear.
In the meantime, I move on to the questions on the ring-fence from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She spoke about a return to casino banking, but she will understand that I disagree with her on that point. These are sensible, technical reforms on which the Treasury has undertaken detailed work with the PRA. The PRA is satisfied that they maintain the appropriate financial stability safeguards. The Treasury has considered the combined overall risk of reforms to the sector, alongside detailed cost-benefit analysis through an impact assessment. That impact assessment concluded that the reforms will improve outcomes for banks and their customers by making the ring-fencing regime more flexible and proportionate, while maintaining appropriate financial stability safeguards and minimising risks to public funds.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville- Rolfe, asked which specific banks will be removed from the ring-fence as a result of these measures. The reforms create significant new optionality for banks, with the eventual benefits depending on their commercial decisions. It is for the banks to announce how they will utilise the new flexibilities created in the regime and the Government do not comment on specific firms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also asked about firms being taken out of the ring-fence as a result of the primary threshold. No firms will leave the regime as a result of increasing the core deposit threshold.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in contrast to other noble Lords, spoke of these reforms being too slow and modest. She also asked what assessment the Government had done on the impact of these SIs. We published impact assessments alongside both the ring-fencing and short selling statutory instruments, which set out their estimated impacts on firms. Both these statutory instruments are estimated to result in a net cost saving for industry.
The noble Baroness also asked how these SIs will deliver growth. There are several measures in the ring-fencing SI that have an impact on growth. We are increasing the core deposit threshold at which banks become subject to the regime, allowing them to grow, as well as exempting retail-focused banks from the regime. We have also introduced new flexibilities for ring-fenced banks to invest in UK small and medium enterprises. The Short Selling Regulations introduce a streamlined short selling regime, which reduces costs for firms and improves UK competitiveness, while still effectively protecting against the risks of short selling.
The noble Baroness also asked about the powers that the supervision and enforcement statutory instrument provides. Those regulations extend the normal powers that the Financial Conduct Authority already has over designated activities. They will allow the Financial Conduct Authority to supervise designated activities even where those carrying on the activities are not authorised persons. They mean that it will be able to gather information on and launch investigations into persons carrying on designated activities, and to enforce its designated activity rules, by publicly censuring or imposing financial penalties on persons who breach them. The Financial Conduct Authority will also be able to restrict or prohibit persons from carrying on the activity if necessary. I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on the broader FCA enforcement approach.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before the Minister goes on, I want to ask about naming and shaming. Is it to be done at the stage when enforcement becomes public? Can we be clear when the naming and shaming will take place? The Government are still considering exactly what they are going to do on naming and shaming, I think. It would be good to have confirmation on that because this area is of particular concern to the industry, for an obvious reason: the reputational hit of naming and shaming is substantial.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
If there is anything more that I can usefully add, I will include it in the letter that I will write to the noble Baroness.
A final question was asked about why we have increased the limit by just £10 billion. It was recognised when the ring-fencing regime was originally designed that the threshold would need to be adjusted over time to reflect the evolution of banking practices and growth in the deposit base. The Treasury considered several metrics, as well as financial stability and competition considerations, in proposing the £10 billion increase.
Increasing the deposit threshold will provide smaller banks with more headroom to grow before being subject to the requirements and costs of ring-fencing. This will support domestic competition in the retail banking market. A competitive and dynamic market improves outcomes for depositors. The reforms may also encourage inward investment in the UK, as new entrants to the UK banking market will have more room to grow and develop economies of scale before becoming subject to the regime.
I hope that I have covered all noble Lords’ questions. As I say, I will write on the points that I indicated.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ring-fenced Bodies, Core Activities, Excluded Activities and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Order 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Ring-fenced Bodies, Core Activities, Excluded Activities and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Order 2024.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the Grand Committee do consider the Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee do consider this order, which is related to the 2023 resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited. This order confirms that the former shareholder of SVB UK is not entitled to compensation following the transfer of the bank’s shares to HSBC UK Bank plc.
As noble Lords know, in early March 2023, SVB UK experienced severe financial distress, resulting in rapid deposit outflows. This crisis, originating from its US parent entity, quickly spread to its UK subsidiary. By Friday 10 March, the Bank of England, acting as the resolution authority, declared its intention to place SVB UK into a bank insolvency procedure, absent any meaningful new information.
Over the subsequent weekend, a private sector purchaser was identified. On Monday 13 March, the Bank of England exercised its power under the Banking Act 2009 to transfer the shares of SVB UK to HSBC UK Bank plc. This action was taken following consultation, with the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Treasury and the Bank of England reaching the judgment that the resolution conditions set out in the Banking Act had been met.
The Banking Act requires the Treasury to make a compensation scheme order when the private sector purchaser power is exercised. This order is a mechanism to establish in law what compensation, if any, is due to former shareholders of the resolved firm. The Bank of England undertook a provisional valuation when placing SVB UK into resolution. That valuation found that SVB UK’s shareholder would not have made any recoveries had the firm been placed into a bank insolvency procedure, and therefore no compensation is due to SVB UK’s former shareholder. The Bank of England then commissioned an independent valuation of SVB UK, which confirmed that no compensation is due to the previous shareholder of SVB UK. The order before us today confirms in law the findings of these valuations: that the former shareholder of SVB UK is not due any compensation.
The compensation scheme order for SVB UK is a necessary step to formalise and conclude the resolution process and confirm that no compensation is due to the former shareholder. This decision is based on thorough valuations and adheres to the legal framework established by the Banking Act 2009. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may be pleased to hear that I have very little to say on this SI. It makes sense to me. The Bank of England report on the transfer of Silicon Valley Bank UK to HSBC argues clearly and logically that, in any reasonable scenario, SVB’s UK tier 1 and tier 2 capital would have been wiped out, so there are no grounds to compensate the former US parent.
However, the fact that this SI is needed raises a question. The resolution of large banks that fail would require wiping out shareholders and calling in bail-in bonds under the MREL procedures without compensation. Would those processes all require a report and an SI to be laid in order for action by the Bank of England to be legal? If that is what the legislation currently says, is there a flaw in the resolution legislation? If there is a flaw, does it need to be rectified? In other words, it seems extraordinary that we need an SI under these circumstances at all.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I also welcome the draft Silicon Valley Bank UK Limited Compensation Scheme Order 2024. It rightly confirms in law that no compensation is due to shareholders of Silicon Valley Bank UK Ltd on the transfer of shares to HSBC UK Bank plc in March 2023, when, as the Minister explained, the former experienced rapid deposit outflows.
The swift action that the last Government took to facilitate the sale averted a potential catastrophe for tech start-ups and small businesses dependent on that bank—precisely the kind of enterprises that can help to drive Britain’s growth and innovation in the decades to come. The special resolution regime reinforced trust in the financial system while reminding us that stability is the foundation upon which innovation thrives.
Although I welcome this order, can the Minister clarify how the lessons learned from this well-handled crisis will inform future regulation of mid-sized banks? Further, can he elaborate on how the scheme aligns with our wider growth agenda? To my mind, the tech sector is critical to Britain’s global competitiveness, and maintaining its trust in the financial system is key to sustaining our position as a world-leading hub for innovation—an ambition that is under some challenge, as I mentioned earlier. But I am very happy with this order.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support for the compensation scheme order.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked whether this SI was genuinely needed. In terms of the specifics, I can assure her that I would not be standing here if it was not, but I will write to her about the hypothetical that she raises.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for the points that she made. I agree very much with what she said about the importance of the action that was taken. She asked whether we have learned the lessons from that for future regulation. I point to the bank resolution Bill that I have just taken through the House. It is absolutely informed by the experience of the Silicon Valley Bank episode and directly flows from it.
The noble Baroness also asked how this order relates to the growth agenda. As I always say, stability is the first pillar of the growth agenda. Financial stability is as important as economic stability and I believe that this order will help to ensure financial stability as that platform for growth. With that, I commend it to the Committee.
Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL]
Lord Livermore ExcerptsFriday 13th December 2024
(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Listed Investment Companies (Classification etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, who has argued so cogently and cohesively for the Bill.
Finding ourselves in this position appears to be a mistake, and it is essential that we take the right steps to ensure that disclosures relating to closed-end listed investment companies are presented accurately. This is not merely a point of minute detail. As the noble Baroness has argued so diligently, the current situation has led to the loss of tens of billions of pounds of potential investments, resulting in economic damage to our country.
The Government tell us repeatedly that they want growth, and therefore the British people expect them to take the right steps to foster that growth. Indeed, as the Minister highlighted at Second Reading, EU-derived legislation related to retail disclosure is not fit for UK markets. We understand that the Government have committed to making changes to address and resolve these issues, and His Majesty’s Official Opposition greatly hope that the Government will continue to listen to the noble Baroness in a co-ordinated and collaborative effort to foster the growth that is essential if we are to deliver optimal outcomes for everyone across the country.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on her Bill, and I thank her for her engagement on this issue so far. The Bill seeks to address an important concern for the sector, and I am grateful for the work of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords to raise awareness of the issue. As she has rightly identified, the previous legislation relating to retail disclosure was not fit for purpose. That is something on which the Government, the Financial Conduct Authority and many Members of this House agree, and it is an area in which this Government have already taken forward action to address industry concerns.
Only last month, the Government passed legislation to replace the package retail and insurance-based investment regulations with a new framework for consumer composite investments. That has provided the FCA with the appropriate powers to deliver a new disclosure regime that is more proportionate and tailored to UK markets and firms, including for investment trusts.
The Government also heard concerns from industry that the cost disclosure requirements have had an unintended consequence for the investment trust sector and its ability to fundraise. As a result, the Government took exceptional action to temporarily exempt investment trusts from cost disclosure regulation, with legislation passed last month to that effect.
Given that investment trusts offer their products to retail investors, it is right that they must provide tailored disclosure on costs, risks and performance to support consumer understanding. Together, the instruments that the Government have already passed will enable the FCA to holistically reform cost disclosure, addressing issues with current disclosure requirements. Ensuring that retail investors can make informed investment decisions is a key component of healthy UK capital markets.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her continued championing of the investment trust sector and for bringing her concerns to the Government’s attention. I hope she will recognise the genuine difference that her campaign has made. However, given the Government’s legislative interventions to resolve this issue, I am afraid I must express reservations on behalf of the Government on the Bill.
Small Farms and Family Businesses
Lord Livermore Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for securing today’s debate and congratulate him on his opening speech. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, following her valedictory speech. Throughout her many years in this House the noble Baroness has been an important and influential voice, on the issue of healthcare in particular. I wish her well for the future.
I have listened closely to the words of all noble Lords throughout this debate, and I of course acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed today. I pay tribute to the huge contribution that our farmers make, not only to our economy and to our food security but to our way of life. The Government are deeply committed to supporting them and our rural communities. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich observed, I know that many in the sector are anxious about what the changes announced in the Budget mean for them. In the time I have available, I shall set out some facts and seek to provide some reassurance about the impact of the measures we are introducing.
Let me first, though, remind your Lordships’ House about the economic context in which the Budget decisions were taken. As noble Lords will know, the Government faced an incredibly challenging fiscal position, with a need to both repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. We believe that economic stability is the foundation of economic growth and that stability in the public finances is a core part of that, so ignoring or postponing difficult decisions was simply not an option.
Many noble Lords have spoken in today’s debate about the fragile state of the rural economy, and they are of course right. Problems including poor public transport, a lack of affordable housing and poor digital connectivity have plagued rural communities for years. That is why fixing the foundations of our economy for the long term is so important, so we can invest in the public services and the infrastructure that will benefit the whole of our country.
Among the many difficult decisions that we had to take in the Budget, much of this debate has focused on the reforms that we are making to agricultural property relief and business property relief. I recognise that inheritance tax is an emotive issue. It is an understandable and natural desire for people to want to pass on the assets they worked hard for to the people they love when they die, and the Government recognise the role that these reliefs play in supporting farms and small businesses. Importantly, they will continue to play that role, but the reality is that the full, unlimited exemption, introduced in 1992, has become unsustainable.
The main issue is one of fairness. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest landowners and business owners. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief is claimed by just 7% of estates making claims. That is just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief.
It is a similar picture for business property relief. More than 50% of business property relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims, which equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances.
A secondary issue relates to the purchase of farmland. The reality today is that buying agricultural land is now one of the most well-known ways to shield wealth from inheritance tax. This has artificially inflated the price of farmland, locking younger farmers out of the market. Clearly, this was not the objective of this 100% relief when it was first introduced in 1992.
For the reasons that I have set out, the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. We are doing so in a way that maintains significant tax relief for estates, including farms and businesses, while supporting the public finances in a fair way.
Many different numbers were used in today’s debate, so let me set out some of the facts. Under the new system, individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. Above this amount, there will be 50% relief. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%.
Up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to be affected as a result of these changes in 2026-27. Therefore, nearly three-quarters of estates making claims in that period will not pay any more tax as a result of this change in the year it is introduced. Similarly, around three-quarters of estates claiming business property relief alone in 2026-27 will not pay any more inheritance tax either.
Indeed, all estates making claims for these reliefs will continue to receive generous support, at a cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer in the first year. The reliefs also sit on top of all the other spousal exemption and nil-rate bands. Therefore, a couple with agricultural or business assets will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million-worth of assets without paying any inheritance tax.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, spoke about the longer-term projections for this tax change. However, forecasts for the impact of these changes over a long period are unreliable, as estates will make changes to the way they plan their tax affairs in order to reduce their liabilities. For example, they may change ownership structures or plan for their succession differently.
After these reforms are implemented, the system will remain more generous than it was before 1992, when inheritance tax was applied at a maximum rate of 50%, including on the first £1 million. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, our reforms will leave farmland
“much more lightly taxed than most other assets”.
Importantly, however, people can also access existing features of the inheritance tax system. Full exemptions for transfers between spouses and civil partners will continue to apply, meaning that any agricultural and business assets left to a spouse or civil partner will be completely tax free.
Any inheritance tax liability on relevant assets can be paid in 10 annual instalments in most circumstances and will be interest free. These payment terms are more generous than in any other part of the tax system. If owners pass on their businesses seven or more years before their death, no inheritance tax will be due. Taper relief will also apply within that time. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, asked about taking an income in these circumstances; there are several ways in which this would still be possible.
The changes will not be introduced until April 2026, giving farmers time to plan and assess their liabilities. As the changes are implemented, we expect estates to reduce their tax liabilities. For example, individuals may change ownership structures or plan for their succession differently. The costings by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility take full account of this and assume that it will occur.
At this point, I would like to directly address some of the misinformation that has surrounded this issue. Much of this has focused on the data used to determine how many estates will be affected, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Shephard of Northwold and Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Rogan, Lord Northbrook, Lord de Clifford and Lord Douglas-Miller. I encourage all noble Lords who have not yet seen it to review the letter that the Chancellor sent to the Treasury Select Committee in the other place setting out the facts in this regard, copies of which are available in the Library.
It is important that we avoid causing unnecessary concern to farmers and farming communities. The data the Government use is based on HMRC’s inheritance tax claims data—that is to say, the actual claims made by estates for agricultural and business property relief. This is the most robust data there is and is endorsed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Some noble Lords have referred to data published regularly by Defra, data from the Northern Ireland Executive and from other organisations and have used this to claim that the number of estates affected will actually be far higher. However, this data relates to the total value of farms across the country. It is impossible to accurately calculate inheritance tax liability from this data because owning assets over the exemption threshold does not necessarily mean you will pay inheritance tax on those assets. This is because such data does not account for key factors such as who owns the farm or the nature of that ownership, how many people own the farm and how they plan their affairs. It also assumes no succession planning over the coming years.
The noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Holbeach and Lord de Clifford, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about assessments made of this tax change. The Government set out their modelling at the Budget and more recently the Chancellor provided further details to the Treasury Select Committee, including in her follow-up letter. As is standard practice, we will publish a tax information and impact note in the usual way alongside the draft legislation next year.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, asked what steps the Government have taken to consult on these measures. Alongside routine engagement, the Government received Budget representations from the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association which covered this specific issue. We will continue to work closely with key stakeholders in the industry as we implement this change.
My noble friend Lady Mallalieu, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble Baronesses, Lady Foster and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, also raised concerns around mental health among farmers and in rural communities. Mental health is of course an issue that the Government take extremely seriously, which is why we are working to improve mental health services across the country, including through plans to recruit an additional 8,500 mental health workers. Defra also works through its farming and countryside programme with a range of farming charities, including the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution and the Yellow Wellies charity, which have highlighted mental health challenges for farming communities.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked if the Government will consider dispensation for farmers above a certain age. The Government remain committed to the changes as set out in the Budget, but clearly individual circumstances will vary. Therefore, any individual who is concerned about their specific tax liability should consult an accountant or financial adviser.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, asked about the level of the threshold. The Government’s position remains that our approach gets the balance right between supporting farms and fixing the public finances in a fair way.
Many noble Lords raised the issue of wider support to farmers and rural communities. The changes we are introducing should of course be seen in this wider context. The Budget committed £5 billion to farming over the next two years, including being the biggest Budget for sustainable food production in our history. It also committed £60 million to help farmers affected by the unprecedented wet weather last winter, and we are protecting farms and rural businesses by committing £2.4 billion over the next two years to rebuild crumbling flood defences.
We will also continue to provide existing support for the farming industry in the wider tax system. This includes, for example, the exemption from business rates for agricultural land and buildings, and the ongoing entitlement for vehicles and machinery used in agriculture to use rebated diesel and biofuels.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Foster, and the noble Lords, Lord Rogan, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Taylor of Holbeach, spoke about food security. That is an issue we approach with the utmost seriousness. It is why we have committed £5 billion to the farming sector over this year and next to support long-term food security. As the United Kingdom Food Security Report 2024 published yesterday showed, our food security has been resilient in the face of a number of shocks over the last three years.
The Government recognise that a small minority of estates will be affected by these changes, but reform of these reliefs is necessary given the fiscal challenge that confronts us. We must put our economy back on to a stable footing and repair our broken public services. That includes the schools, hospitals and roads which communities across the country, including those in rural areas, rely on every day. We have taken this decision in a way which makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable, and it is set against the backdrop of significant new investment for farming as well as support for small businesses. Again, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today, and in particular the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for securing this debate.
Economic Productivity
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for increasing productivity in the UK economy.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, in the decade from 2010 the UK economy saw the lowest productivity growth since the Napoleonic Wars, which led to the lowest growth in living standards ever recorded. Reversing that performance is the number one mission of this Government. As part of our growth strategy, we have set out far-reaching plans to increase productivity, including restoring economic stability, reforms to planning, to skills and to the labour market, record levels of investment in R&D, new investment in transport connectivity, a modern industrial strategy and a 10-year infrastructure strategy.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I believe the Government missed an important opportunity by failing to impose productivity conditions alongside their costly public sector pay rises. I do know that productivity is a complicated area. On most metrics, public sector productivity has been significantly lagging that of the private sector. What measures will the Government adopt to ensure that it increases towards private-sector levels?
In particular, the Minister mentioned planning. Does he agree that speeding up and simplifying planning, and reducing the cost of electricity for businesses, rather than doing endless review, should be important components of the plan that he set out?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Question. To answer her first point, she is incorrect to say that we did not impose any productivity criteria. We have introduced a 2% efficiency and productivity target in the NHS for this year and next year. We have also gone further than the previous Government did by extending that target to all government departments to ensure that we are improving the quality of public services while also improving value for money.
The noble Baroness mentioned planning. A significant programme of planning reform was announced by the Chancellor on her very first day in the Treasury. The previous Government had 14 years to announce those things but never did anything.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, as a former small businessman, I welcome the Government’s recent announcements to help small businesses, including increasing the threshold for national insurance contributions from £5,000 to £10,500, and cutting business rates for shops, pubs and other leisure properties. Are there any more goodies to come in the future from this new Labour Government for small businessmen?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his support for the policies we have announced for small businesses. He is absolutely right that we protected small businesses in the recent Budget. SMEs are, of course, an essential part of a growing economy. We set out clear plans for small businesses in our manifesto and we will deliver on those in the coming months.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister was right to mention skills being central to bringing productivity up. Both our parties had large chapters on skills in our manifestos and, since coming into office, the Government have announced initiatives, consultations and suchlike. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House when the first cadre of employees who have benefited from any of the skills measures that the Government intend to bring in will reach the workplace?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct to say that both parties are absolutely aligned on the importance of skills reform, which is why we have announced Skills England. We will be increasing the number of people in training and they will enter the workforce as soon as they graduate.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, the Office for National Statistics may have inadvertently thrown some light on our so-called productivity puzzle. The slide in the quality of its workforce data appears to have coincided with the increasing practice of its staff working from home—in many cases five days a week. Indeed, ONS staff have recently threatened industrial action—to go on strike—if forced to work from the office for two days a week. Do the Government have plans to commission a study across the public sector of the impact that working from home has on productivity? It is a crucial issue.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord cares deeply about this issue. He has spoken in debates on this topic before and has made some very important points about productivity. I have also answered a Question in this House on working from home and its impact on public sector productivity. As I said then, the current evidence is mixed. There are clear advantages to working from home for some and there are also clear disadvantages to working from home. Most studies seem to suggest that there are significant benefits to a hybrid model. But there are no such plans to commission the kind of study he mentioned.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Does my noble friend accept that there are some really perverse outcomes in the current way we assess productivity in the public sector, such as smaller class sizes worsening productivity in the education system, or employing more police officers so crime drops and the ratio therefore worsens? Is it not really important that we get a bit of common sense into this?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I completely agree with my noble friend on that point. Measuring public sector productivity is very difficult and contradictory measures are involved. My noble friend is right that, obviously, our priority is improving those public services and we will continue to do so.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, in the 1970s, we attracted enormous increases in productivity by also attracting vast quantities of Japanese inward investment, which saved our motor industry. Now, unfortunately, our motor industry needs saving again. Could we concentrate on attracting FDI by having the kind of Budget that really makes international investors keen to invest here on a scale much larger than anything that has come before?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely correct to say that investment is one of the key drivers in raising productivity. Obviously, it was a matter of regret that, under the previous Government, the UK was the only G7 country with levels of private sector investment below 20% of GDP. We are absolutely determined to raise that: the recent international investment summit saw £64 billion of investment come into the UK, creating some 40,000 jobs. We are determined to continue that trend.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, productivity is now often spoken of in relation to the National Health Service, which the Minister mentioned in his Answer to the Question. The Health Foundation looked at NHS productivity and identified maintaining morale and motivating the workforce as key to it. Alongside essential things such as targets, what effort are the Government making to continue softer leadership, including listening to the workforce and fostering good industrial relations?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely correct in what she says about the importance of the health service to productivity. A healthier workforce is a more productive workforce. We have a 10-year NHS health plan in the works. It will be published in the spring and will focus on delivering the reforms needed to ensure better value for money for taxpayers and sustainable productivity gains. Of course, good working relations with the workforce are essential to that.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, big business in the United Kingdom is among the most productive in the world. It is small businesses, which as the Minister said are the backbone of our economy, that struggle to grow productivity. How will the Government even communicate with this sector—most of the conversation is about only tax issues—to encourage and support innovation? How will they change financial services, so that businesses that wish to innovate can realistically access finance?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
That is a very good question, which I am not sure I know the answer to. Obviously, the Department for Business and Trade has an ongoing programme of dialogue with small businesses, as the noble Baroness said, in terms of communication, and it will continue to do that. The recent Mansion House reforms outlined by the Chancellor will, I hope, address the noble Baroness’s points.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Do the Government accept that the fall in business confidence since the Budget will have a depressing effect on the investment needed to secure productivity gains?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Well, I hope that the recent international investment summit, which saw £64 billion of investment come into the UK, suggests otherwise. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Bank of England and the OECD have all upgraded their forecasts for the growth of the UK economy over the next three years; that is a very encouraging sign.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that one way of increasing productivity is by reducing headcount and costs? Could we in this Chamber perhaps give a lead to the country by looking at what we are doing and seeing whether, in six months, we could reduce our headcount by getting rid of those people who come along and claim their expenses but do no work?
Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2024
Lord Livermore Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Livermore
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 2 December.