Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, the economy is not in a good state. The Budget and the so-called growth plan are not about to make things any better.

The Prime Minister and the Chancellor would like us to believe that all our economic woes are the result of Putin’s war and the resultant energy price increases. They want us to focus on the energy-capping element of their economic strategy, but the truth is that, before Putin, there were already worrying signs of output constraints, labour market distortions and inflationary pressures resulting from the disruptive effects of both Brexit and the pandemic.

Now, inflation is at almost 10%, output is still below its pre-pandemic level and wages for many, especially those in the public sector, are lagging well behind prices. Meanwhile, public services are in urgent need of resources, not just to deal with the enormous backlog built up during the pandemic but to rebuild resilience following a decade of underfunding of health, social care, education and local authority spending. Not only that but the lack of healthcare resources is almost certainly having a significant, negative impact on the labour market and, consequently, economic output.

In these circumstances, the Budget on 24 September should have confined itself to introducing the new energy price caps, with a promise of properly considered tax and spending decisions—and funding arrangements to match—to come later in the year. Instead, the Chancellor succeeded in spooking the financial markets with the promise of massive unfunded tax cuts, thereby weakening the pound and, more importantly, pushing up the cost of government debt and raising interest rates more quickly than would otherwise have been needed.

With mortgage rates already increasing to over 6%, mortgage payments as a proportion of household disposable income will be at their highest since 1989, just before the crash in house prices of the early 1990s—and this on top of record energy bills. No wonder consumer confidence and business confidence are weak and there is every prospect of stagnation, perhaps even recession, in the coming months. What is the Government’s response? It is tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor and the prospect of a new round of austerity in public sector spending, all dressed up as a plan for growth.

How, then, are we to explain the Chancellor resorting to swingeing tax cuts, worth £43 billion at the latest count, in conditions of high—and rising—interest rates and overstretched, underfunded public services? The Government’s position, at least in public, is that tax cuts will be paid for by increased economic growth, which they will also help to generate in combination with cutting red tape and easing planning regulations. The problem, however, is that almost no one—certainly not the markets—believes that these things are likely to happen. There is no evidence from either comparison across countries or past experience that lower taxes are associated with higher productivity growth and, hence, higher trend rates of growth in output. Of course, in the right circumstances, cutting taxes can stimulate demand and so raise output in the short run, but that works only when inflation is low and there is plenty of spare capacity, which is far from the case at the moment.

As for deregulation, easing planning regulations may help a little if it is not thwarted by local opposition, including from Tory interests. However, the perennial and often counterproductive war on red tape and gimmicks such as investment zones will have a marginal impact at best.

If we cannot rely on increased growth to fund the Chancellor’s tax cuts, there is only one option for avoiding an unsustainable spiral of increasing government debt: large-scale cuts in government spending. Perhaps it is not unduly cynical to suggest that shrinking the state may have been a secondary—even primary, in some quarters—objective of the tax-cutting strategy. That would certainly be consistent with the decision to sidestep the scrutiny of the OBR when the tax cuts were announced. In any case—

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

The noble Lord has had quite a lot of latitude with the advisory speaking time but is now significantly over. Perhaps he could think about drawing his comments to a close.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

I am on my last sentence.

In any case, if the tax cuts are to be sustained, substantial cuts in government spending are on the way. The paradox is that this is the opposite of what is required for a credible growth plan.

Elections Bill

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly in support of this group of amendments. I will speak briefly as I was not able to participate in the Second Reading debate.

Looking at the Bill in its entirety, it is pretty clear why most of the various elements are contained within it. I hope that the Minister will not find it pejorative if I suggest that this is because they convey an advantage in one particular direction rather than another. I look at the provisions in the Bill for blind and partially sighted people and I wonder, “What is it that blind and partially sighted people have ever done to the Conservative Party?” Because, in its existing form, the Bill reduces and diminishes the rights that blind and partially sighted people have in terms of casting their vote independently and in secret.

So why was that? There are various reasons. It could be that, in an excess of zeal to extend the rights of disabled people more generally, somehow this was a mistake, and they did not intend to take away the rights of blind and partially sighted people but simply wanted to put in an additional, rather than a replacement, provision for disabled people. If so, that is clearly a mistake, and no doubt when the Minister rises, he will say, “Yes, it was a mistake and we’re going to correct it”.

The other concern may be that, as I understand it, the Government have lost two court cases on precisely this principle: whether they are meeting their existing obligations. So maybe this is about cost. In which case, I hope that the Minister will recognise that to deprive certain categories of people of their vote because it will cost too much to make the necessary provision is inappropriate.

So I hope that the Minister when he responds will recognise that the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, are entirely sensible—they remedy what I hope was an accidental change introduced by the Government that would diminish the rights of blind and partially sighted people—and that he will accept them, or one of the other amendments before us today.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I have here a speech in support of the case which has been deployed already with great eloquence by a number of speakers— I think that we are up to three or four already—so I think that the best service I can perform for the Committee is not to read it out. The argument for amending the Bill to underwrite the case for inclusion and accessibility in the voting process, particularly for blind and partially sighted people and people with disabilities, has been very strongly articulated. That being so, it is incumbent on the Government to take particular note of what has been said and respond to the call for reinforcing the accessibility and inclusiveness of the electoral process, in particular for people with disabilities and people who are blind or partially sighted.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, if an amendment has been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, moved briefly but eloquently by my noble friend, and now endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, we do not really need to say any more, do we?

We talk about the expertise of this House. Here we have three of our most respected Members, who themselves have overcome so many of the difficulties of being blind. They can speak with a measure of experience that none of us can begin to emulate. I hope that my noble friend will give a very brief summing up and say, “Yes, we accept what has been said by those who truly know what they’re talking about”—and then we will move on.

Covid-19: Wedding Venues

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I would say to my noble friend that we have only just moved into a new phase, which people are welcoming, in which marriages can actually take place. For a number of months, weddings have not been allowed and managers have had to confront that question. I am afraid that the position must remain that venue managers themselves will have discretion over when they consider it safe to open. Also, the officiant at a wedding, whether in a church or a secular setting, needs to be content that it is safe to proceed.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB) [V]]

My Lords, once weddings resume, there will no doubt be a huge backlog of demand for registrars that could easily stretch through to the end of next year. One way the Government should seek to ease that demand is by extending legal recognition to humanist marriages, which would mean that couples who want a humanist wedding would not also have to have a civil ceremony to gain legal recognition. Humanist marriages are already legally recognised in Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Will the Government commit to acting now to bring about similar recognition here?

Covid-19: Economy

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, will rushing to lift the lockdown hasten or postpone recovery? The Prime Minister seems to have started to lift the lockdown more quickly than most scientists would have advised. No doubt the reasons are mixed, but strong pressure seems to have come from the Treasury, concerned about the costs of furloughing and other income support measures, and anxious to see an increase in tax receipts from increased economic activity. However, the belief that the sooner we lift lockdown, the sooner we will all get back to work, may well be misplaced. Infection and death rates are still high: the R value is not much below 1, and we do not have a fully functioning test, trace and isolate regime in place. The danger is that infection rates will start to rise again, and we will not have the testing capacity to track and suppress new outbreaks.

In the event of a second wave, lockdown may have to be reimposed—or in any case people will choose not to go back to work and be unwilling to go out and spend, and the recovery will stall. Premature unlocking could well thus cost the Treasury and business more, not less. Much better, then, to delay a precipitate lifting of the lockdown for a few weeks, which would be sufficient to get infection rates down and put in place a test, trace and isolate regime capable of tracking and suppressing new outbreaks. Of course, no one can be sure how the virus will respond to raising the lockdown, or how people will behave in the event of a second wave, but arguably the risks of a second wave and a long, delayed recovery greatly outweigh those of a more cautious lockdown that will buy time for infection and death rates to come down and for test, trace and isolate to kick in.

The other thing to highlight is, of course, the interplay between Covid and Brexit. The big risk is that, under cover of our preoccupation with the pandemic and its economic impact, the Government will squander the opportunity of a trade deal with the 27 and default to what the ERG have always wanted: no trade deal and WTO rules by the beginning of next year. This would of course be an act of wilful self-harm when we need to do everything possible to stimulate post-Covid recovery, a point well illustrated by this week’s reminder from Nissan that its Sunderland plant will be unsustainable in the absence of a trade deal.

Covid-19: Restrictions

Lord Low of Dalston Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend a specific date. However, I underline not only that the matter is, as I stated, under continuous review but that Public Health England hopes to issue further guidance next month.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, will the Government ensure that the steps to adjust restrictions for those isolating clearly allow for healthy individuals over 70 to be trusted to use their judgment regarding their personal safety and that of the wider community?

[Lord True]

My Lords, the guidance that is in place is advisory. We have no plans to make it mandatory for people aged 70 and over to follow advice beyond what is mandatory for all of us. However, I repeat that the scientific and medical evidence is clear that those in older age groups are in graver danger from the serious consequences of this virus.