Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) Order 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this Government have undertaken the most fundamental programme of financial reform this country has ever seen. The Bank of England sits at the heart of this new system, with clear responsibility for maintaining financial stability. The Bank is supported by the firm-level supervisors: the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority.

A key element of the new system is the Financial Policy Committee. The FPC is responsible for identifying, monitoring and addressing risks to the system as a whole. This macroprudential regulation was entirely absent from the system we inherited.

The FPC works to improve financial stability in two ways: first, through recommendations, which can be made to the regulators, industry, the Treasury, within the Bank and to other persons; and, secondly, through directions that can be given to the PRA and FCA. The FPC’s direction power is limited to macroprudential measures set out in orders like those currently before the House. The regulators must comply with a direction, but they will have discretion over its timing and implementation method.

The FPC has recommended that its powers of direction be expanded so that it may effectively tackle systemic risks within the financial sector. The Government agree with those recommendations and have brought forward the instruments that we are discussing today. These instruments will provide the FPC with powers of direction with regard to the UK housing market and a leverage ratio framework. I will discuss these powers in turn.

Owning a property is an aspiration for many people in the UK, and one which this Government support. However, we cannot be blind to the risks that can emerge from the housing market. More than two-thirds of previous systemic banking crises were preceded by boom-bust housing cycles, and recessions following property booms have been two to three times deeper on average than those without.

To solve this issue, we need to be clear about where the risks arise. They arise when people borrow too much and leave themselves vulnerable to changes in circumstances. Excessive debt can create serious difficulties for households and, given that mortgages are the single largest asset on bank balance sheets, it can result in significant vulnerabilities in the banking system. We all know from the experience of the financial crisis how important it is for the banking system to be resilient to all shocks, including those from the housing market. Excess debt can also force households to cut back on spending which can, in aggregate, create difficulties for the economy as a whole.

Let me be clear: there is no immediate cause for alarm. The FPC has itself stated that since taking action in June, there has been no increase in financial stability risk from the housing market. However, not to prepare for such events would be dangerously complacent. So we need to ensure the FPC has the tools at its disposal to deal with these risks should they arise, which is why we are giving the FPC far-reaching new powers over owner-occupied mortgages. Specifically, if the FPC judges that some borrowers are being offered excessive amounts of debt, they can limit the proportion of high debt-to-income—DTI—mortgages each bank can lend or, in extremis, simply ban all new lending above a specific ratio. Similarly, if the FPC is concerned by the risks posed by a housing bubble, it could impose caps on loan-to-value ratios. These additional powers over the housing market are commonly held by central banks in other countries, and the experiences of Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong confirm that DTI and LTV limits are efficient tools to address risks in the housing sector.

I now turn to the other instrument that we are considering today. The recent financial crisis revealed serious weaknesses in the existing framework of internationally agreed standards of capital adequacy. Banks in most jurisdictions were only required to meet risk-weighted capital requirements and were not subject to leverage requirements. In the lead-up to the crisis, some banks’ balance sheets expanded significantly while average risk weights declined. Firms’ leverage ratios were a useful indicator of failure during the last crisis, and the period immediately preceding the crisis was characterised by sharp increases in leverage. Firms with high leverage ratios have greater amounts of capital to absorb losses which materialise and have less reliance on debt financing.

There is international agreement that the leverage ratio is a crucial complement to risk-based capital requirements. The usefulness of the leverage ratio as a regulatory requirement has been recognised by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which has included proposals for a 3% minimum leverage ratio in the Basel III agreement. Countries such as Canada and the US already impose leverage ratio requirements and have also committed to going beyond the Basel III requirements.

In the UK, both the Independent Commission on Banking and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards have recommended that banks should be subject to minimum leverage ratio requirements. On 26 November 2013, the Chancellor requested that the FPC undertake a review of the leverage ratio and its role in the regulatory framework. In light of international developments, the Chancellor judged that it was an appropriate time for the FPC to consider all outstanding issues relating to the leverage ratio, including whether and when the FPC needed any additional powers of direction over the leverage ratio, and whether and how leverage requirements should be scaled up for ring-fenced banks and in other circumstances where risk-based capital ratios are raised.

On 31 October last year, following almost a year of work and extensive consultation with stakeholders, the FPC published its response, The Financial Policy Committee’s Review of the Leverage Ratio. The review recommended that the FPC be given new powers of direction over the leverage ratio framework for the UK banking sector. The Chancellor agreed with these recommendations and, following a consultation on the implementation of the proposals, brought forward the instrument that we are considering today.

The instrument will grant the FPC powers to set: a minimum leverage ratio that all firms must meet; additional leverage ratio buffers for systemic firms, linked to their systemic risk-weighted capital requirements; and a countercyclical leverage ratio buffer for all firms, linked to the countercyclical capital buffer that is also set by the FPC. These powers will allow the FPC to ensure that firms are not allowed to take on excessive levels of leverage, that the most systemically important firms are more resilient than other firms and that resilience is built up for all firms when times are good. I beg to move.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these two orders. The Minister and I meet like this quite regularly, just the two of us. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for making the government side look a bit more multiple, but only two of us are going to speak. Often we discuss rather minor orders, but I do not think that these are minor; they are absolutely fundamental to the work that we have done in the Chamber with the various financial reform Acts and in the creation and designing of powers of the FPC. These are probably the key ones that have come before us. I thought that they were the first, and possibly I am wrong about that, but I certainly do not remember any as important as this. I do not want in any way to suggest that we are other than supportive of the orders, but I have a few queries and the odd complaint.

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee commented on what it saw as the inadequacies of the Explanatory Memorandum. It particularly pointed out the very trivial summary of the consultation. I agree with the committee in the sense that the explanation of these orders needs quite a narrative. I would have appreciated it if that narrative was in the EM, but in fact one has to go into the impact assessment—and then, really to understand, I found that I had to go back into the minutes of the Financial Policy Committee and its interesting review of the leverage ratio. As a Committee, our considerations would have been enhanced if we had been led down that path rather than having to discover it. In the middle of this process, I realised what a different world it is, because 10 years ago without the internet I would not have had the faintest idea what we were talking about. It is really very complicated to get at if you cannot get back to those source documents.

The one thing that I did find in the Explanatory Memorandums from the Treasury was a name and telephone number. I have to say that my experience of ringing those numbers has been very impressive under previous orders. This time, because his name came up first, because it is attached to the second order, I publicly thank Christopher Woodspeed for spending 40 minutes taking this amateur politician through the intricacies and giving some signposts as to where to go.

I shall be slightly repetitive for the Minister, to set the scene. In creating the FPC and the other institutions, we said to the FPC that it could have two toolkits—a recommended and a directional toolkit. The recommended toolkit is a “comply or explain” toolkit, while the directional toolkit is a “do it” toolkit. As I understand it from going back into the minutes of the Financial Policy Committee of 17 and 25 June, written up as one, the committee discussed the world and particularly alighted on the UK housing market. I do not suppose anybody reads what we say, so it does not matter, but I commend whoever produced the minutes of that meeting, because I found them very readable. They are a good read; they fit together and are pleasantly discursive.

When discussing the housing market, in paragraph 11 of the minutes, the FPC reminds itself what its job is—which I thought was quite clever to put into its minutes. It states:

“Under its primary objective, the FPC was required to ‘remove or reduce systemic risks with a view to protecting and enhancing the resilience of the UK financial system’; legislation defined one source of systemic risk as ‘unsustainable levels of leverage, debt or credit growth’”.

Then the minutes describe a debate, which seems to have been a proper and interesting one. The paragraph that sums up where the committee got to says:

“Taking this evidence together, the Committee assessed that there was the potential for a large and diverse impact on aggregate demand from household indebtedness, with this risk more marked in relation to borrowers with higher levels of indebtedness. The Committee judged that the size of that impact on aggregate demand was sufficient to warrant intervening now”—

that is, in June—

“in the mortgage market, given current conditions and the potential upside risks to the FPC’s central view of the possible future path of the share of mortgages extended at high LTI multiples and hence to overall indebtedness”.

So the MPC had this conversation and produced a couple of recommendations. One was a stress test—about 3% over a period of years, and so on, which all makes sense—and the other is that:

“The PRA and the FCA should ensure that mortgage lenders do not extend more than 15% of their total number of new residential mortgages at loan to income ratios at or greater than 4.5”.

Then there is a de minimis bit of it, and so on. As I understand what the Minister has said, those recommendations did their work. My understanding from reading the various documents and from what he said is that there is not a concern with the housing market at this moment, and I do not think it is seen as a concern in the future. I do not know whether I can confess this, but I actually read the Daily Telegraph this morning—it happens. In an article, Roger Bootle, chief executive of Capital Economics and, as far as I know, pretty politically neutral, says:

“Time and again governments take measures that boost the demand for housing without doing anything to increase supply. The result is higher house prices without accommodating a single extra family—hard-working or otherwise”.

I would like the Minister to confirm that the increased demand that the Budget put into the housing market is not expected to create any destabilising effect.

So we think that the FPC has stabilised the market. However, in October 2014—no, sorry, that was the other stuff; perhaps it was September 2014—the committee determined that it wanted to move its powers from the recommendation toolkit to the direction toolkit. Does the Minister feel that that is because the FPC envisaged instability; is it just going to take the directional power and put in the same figures as in the recommendation, to tidy things up; or is it going to do neither of those things but simply put it in a drawer, with the marketplace knowing it is in a drawer and that it can be drawn out at any time to direct the marketplace away from an unstable path? I would be interested in which of those three options the Government envisage the FPC using these powers for.

I turn to the other order. I read lots of stuff on this but found one document particularly useful. The Minister has the advantage of me as he works in the Treasury; for my part, I end up understanding a bit of this legislation for about a day and a half before we discuss it and then it goes out of one’s mind. The nice thing about the Financial Policy Committee’s review of the leverage ratio is that it takes you through all the background so you can see how all the bits fit together.

As I understand it, the second order, which creates the leverage ratio concept, rules and “calibration”—the word that the FPC used—will not bite with most firms because the capital buffer, if that is the right term, derived from the risk-weighted analysis is in most cases greater than the leverage ratio buffer that will be recommended. In that sense, the new leverage ratio sits there as a floor rather than something that is biting and acting on firms. But I understand, or at least I hope I do—this will be a confirmation of whether or not I have understood it; please forgive me, but I think it is quite important—that some firms, particularly ones that have high-quality assets with low risk, may in fact be caught by the leverage ratio, and that particularly includes building societies.

My next question is: are any problems envisaged from the tightening of the market, for want of a better way of putting it, that the biting of this leverage ratio on those particular institutions is going to lead to? Will there be any adverse effects on housing finance as a result of these ratios being introduced? Finally, as I understand it, a firm could respond to the leverage ratio constraint by changing its asset mix; by moving between different levels of risk, it would change its risk-weighted buffer and come down to this buffer. It is an invitation for firms to look at their asset portfolios.

What I did not understand is the impact that this is going to have on lending to SMEs. I think there is a political consensus that SMEs need to be encouraged and funded in this country. I am curious about the extent to which it is envisaged—I got mixed messages when trying to understand it from the documentation—that this will impact on SME borrowing.

The two orders have the potential to have an impact on growth. The impact assessment has some worked-out examples. They are not forecasts, I accept that, but they illustrate scenarios where there may be some impact on growth through the use of the ratios. The leverage ratio could have a similar effect—a reduction in lending and hence some impact on growth.

It was a particular joy to read the Daily Telegraph this morning. I rather assumed it would be wall-to-wall praise. I take the Guardian to think but I take the Telegraph for therapy—that is one way of looking at it—and it is free at the club. The front page of the business section reads: “Osborne’s bank raid” and concludes that he has done a bank raid of £9.28 billion. The article refers to the OBR report. I have not a chance to read the OBR report—I am saving that for my holiday; I am covering everything in sight today, am I not? But I think it is an incredibly well constructed document which has developed well over the years, and I now find that it is genuinely worthwhile reading as one of the best documents to give you a feel for the economy as a whole. The article says:

“The OBR said in its review of the Budget that the higher levy could ‘affect banks’ ability to meet capital requirements … the measures could affect the supply of credit and therefore GDP growth’”.

So you have on the one hand the Budget with the high levy and on the other these leverage ratios, which if they bite could have an adverse effect. Given the central scenario—by that I mean the scenario that the OBR uses for its next five-year plan—are these orders expected to have any adverse effect on growth? You can read stuff that suggests they do not but it does not definitely say that they do not. Given the central scenario that the Government are using—that is, the OBR scenario for the next five years—are these orders expected to have an adverse effect on growth and, if they do, did the OBR take account of that adverse effect in its documentation or would that need to be added?

This is the end of the Parliament. I am not going to say much about the next order because it is so reasonable I cannot find anything to say about it. We have had a lot of encounters and we are in a situation which I do not know how to remedy but I somehow feel is wrong. We have here some incredibly important orders but I am not sure that we are using the correct mechanism to do them justice. There are just the two of us discussing them. The noble Lord will have studied these orders carefully and been fully briefed and no doubt will hopefully have put his staff under some pressure in this respect, and I have put quite a lot of effort into it. However, I worry about the value of these encounters. I have been trying to think through the value of this encounter. One of the things you can do with an affirmative order is to resist it by voting against it. Realistically, that happens two or three times a Parliament. Very occasionally, you vote it down. In my recollection, that occurs once or twice a decade, so it is hardly our central business. You can seek clarification which sometimes tends to verge on a bit of a blood sport where you are trying to catch the Minister out. I would not try to do that because I know the Minister is so well briefed.

The real issue is scrutiny. One of the problems with scrutiny is that it is so difficult for the Opposition to evidence the fact that they have put effort into scrutinising the legislation and making sure that it does not contain any faults. The value of scrutiny lies usually not so much in scrutinising the order but creating an atmosphere so that back at the ranch—back in the Treasury—people know that the orders that they bring forward are going to be carefully examined, and therefore they are encouraged to be that much more careful and thoughtful. In a sense, all one can do is stand up and say, “We have scrutinised the order”. These orders are particularly unhelpful in that regard, as I cannot find anything wrong with them. As far as I can see, they are well crafted. They sensibly add to the FPC’s powers. As I say, I am disappointed that I cannot find anything wrong with them.

I then glanced down at the first page of the report, which happens to list the membership of the FPC as being the Governor, four deputy-governors—for reasons I do not understand, three were there because they should be there and one was there because she was there; that is roughly what it says on the front page—the chief executive of the FCA, a man from the Treasury and four non-executives. They spent a year doing this work and, if they cannot get it right, we are in trouble. I think that they have got it right.

In summary, I thank the FPC for its efforts and commend it on the results.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for taking such trouble over these orders. He raised a number of points. He asked whether it was the first time that we had used the macroprudential powers. We previously legislated to grant the FPC a power of direction with regard to sectoral capital requirements. This was done through a similar order in 2013. The debate in your Lordships’ House was on 26 February 2013. The FPC was also granted the power to set the UK rate of the countercyclical capital buffer under the CRD IV in the normal way.

The noble Lord was concerned about the lack of detail in the Explanatory Memorandum. The full consultation response document was published on the government website, but I take his point. Those of us who sat through the many weeks and months of consideration of the background policy to these orders when we were putting the Financial Services Bill through your Lordships’ House, had it in our water almost that this was going on. For people who did not do that, which of course is the vast majority of people, it is very important that the accompanying documentation is as comprehensive as possible. I am sure that my colleagues in the Treasury will have noted that, although I am of course very pleased that the noble Lord found the experience of seeking advice from the Treasury so positive.

The noble Lord asked about the extent to which there was concern at the moment about housing and whether this was a precautionary measure or the powers were going to be used immediately. The FPC is clear that these instruments are necessary to tackle financial stability risks that could emerge in the future rather than any risks that we are facing at the moment. As it said in its 2 October statement, the recommendation in relation to these powers,

“relates to the FPC’s general ability to tackle risks that could emerge from the housing market in the future. The Recommendation does not reflect any FPC decision about the current state of the housing market”.

This is a recognition of the importance of the housing market in relation to financial stability, but there is no concern at the moment that the housing market is in such a position that these powers are needed immediately.

The noble Lord asked whether, as a result of the Budget, there was likely to be a further problem with house prices and these powers might be needed sooner rather than later. The key thing here is that we are not just introducing new measures for first-time buyers, for example, but are taking, and have taken, significant steps to boost housing supply, including the new planning policy framework and the most ambitious affordable housing programme for 30 years. Everybody accepts that we need to do more on housing, but when the FPC looked at the Help to Buy scheme in October last year, which people are questioning as a potential problem in terms of financial stability, it came to the conclusion that it did not represent a material risk to financial stability, that it had not been a material driver of recent house price growth and that its key parameters remained appropriate.

The noble Lord asked about the SME lending proposals. The Government and the FPC do not expect leverage requirements to have a material impact on lending to the real economy. At the margins, firms that are bound by leverage ratio requirements may be incentivised to increase SME lending relative to other types of lending, as SME lending often attracts a higher return than other assets that have lower risk weights, as the leverage ration is not risk-weighted. However, we do not expect this effect to be significant.

The noble Lord asked how the leverage tool would affect companies with low-risk assets, particularly building societies. As he pointed out, the key capital constraint for banks and building societies is the risk-weighted capital requirements rather than the leverage ratio. The FPC’s impact assessment suggests that only two of the seven building societies in its sample would need to raise capital to meet leverage ratio requirements. The majority of building societies in the UK use standardised risk models, which means that their average risk weights are above 35%. An average risk weight above 35% means that risk-weighted capital requirements will bind—take effect—before the FPC’s proposed leverage requirements.

Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) (No. 2) Order 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) (No. 2) Order 2015.

Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Mortgage Credit Directive Order 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Mortgage Credit Directive Order 2015.

Relevant document: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

Noble Lords might find it helpful if I start by outlining the background to the legislation. In February 2014 the mortgage credit directive—MCD—was agreed, giving member states until 21 March 2016 to ensure that it is implemented. The MCD has two broad aims: to protect consumers by setting minimum regulatory requirements that member states must meet and to promote the creation of a more harmonised European mortgage market.

However, the UK already has a strong regulatory framework in place to protect consumers in the residential mortgage market. Under this framework, the independent regulator, the FCA, has the authority to put in place, supervise and enforce a range of rules to ensure that firms act responsibly when conducting residential mortgage business. Since this framework was put in place in 2004, the FCA has been able to make incremental changes and develop a regime with strong consumer protections, tailored to the specifics of the UK market.

The MCD does not offer many additional benefits to UK consumers beyond those already provided. However, it does have the potential to increase the burden on business. In recognition of this, the UK’s approach throughout the negotiations on the MCD was to try to align the directive’s requirements with the existing UK regulations, in order to minimise the impact on UK industry and consumers. This strategy proved highly successful and the Government were able to secure a good outcome for the UK.

Once the directive was agreed, the Government set out an approach to implementation that was an extension of the earlier negotiation strategy. We decided to build on the existing UK regulatory regime, minimising the impact on the UK market, avoiding disruption and ensuring that the gains made from improvements in regulation over the past 10 years were not squandered unnecessarily. This approach means that implementation of the MCD will be achieved primarily through adjustments to existing FCA rules. However, there are areas where UK legislation has to be changed, and that is the purpose of the draft order under consideration today.

There are two main areas where the draft order makes a significant change. The first is to the regulatory framework for second charge mortgages. These are loans secured on property that is already acting as security for a first charge mortgage. The terms first charge and second charge refer to the priority of securities held by the lenders, where the second charge is subordinate to the first. Typical uses for this type of loan include debt consolidation and home improvements. Currently, the scope of FCA mortgage regulation is limited to first charge mortgage lending, with second charge lending regulated as part of the FCA’s consumer credit regime.

The Government previously committed to move second charge mortgage lending into the regulatory regime for mortgage lending on the basis that it is more appropriate to regulate lending secured on the borrower’s home consistently. This proposal was welcomed by the industry. However, it was decided that this move would be postponed to coincide with the implementation of the MCD and reduce the number of regulatory changes that firms would have to ensure compliance with. As a result, this draft order will ensure that, as of 21 March 2016, the FCA will be able to regulate the vast majority of secured lending under one regulatory regime.

The second area where this order will make a significant change is with respect to buy-to-let mortgages. Existing UK legislation excludes buy-to-let mortgages from the scope of FCA regulation. This approach is driven by two key considerations. The first is that, unlike lending to an owner-occupier, the borrower’s home is not at risk. Second is the acknowledgement that buy-to-let borrowers tend to be acting as a business.

The Government are committed to introducing FCA regulation only where there is a clear case for doing so in order to avoid putting additional costs on firms that would ultimately lead to higher costs for borrowers. However, while the MCD allows member states to exempt buy-to-let from the detailed requirements of the directive, it requires that member states using this option put in place an appropriate framework at a national level for buy-to-let lending to consumers. The Government have decided to use this option to put in place the minimum requirements needed to meet the UK’s legal obligations, as they are not persuaded of the case for the full conduct regulation of buy-to-let mortgages.

The order under consideration today sets out these rules and gives the FCA the power to register, supervise and enforce them in line with its existing statutory duties. This draft order has been prepared in close co-ordination with the FCA, industry and consumer groups. The overall approach we have taken has had broad-based support from all these groups and it has been extremely pleasing to see how we could work together to achieve a positive outcome for the UK. By delivering on our key objective and putting this legislation in place well in advance of the transposition date, we will give the mortgage industry the certainty it desires and the best chance possible of a smooth transition to the new regulatory framework.

The net cost of this draft order is expected to be £11 million in total over a 10-year period. However, it is also worth noting that the cost of taking a copy-out approach in this instance was estimated to cost £48.7 million more per year over the same period.

I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that this statutory instrument will ensure compliance with the EU mortgage credit directive in a manner that minimises the impact on industry, retains the strengths of our regulatory framework for mortgages and ensures that consumers experience limited change as a result.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing this order. He has persuaded me that it is perfectly sensible and that it achieves the objectives.

My sole comment relates to the tone of the description of our relationship with the EU in this matter. I would love to have heard a tone that said we were concerned about the health of the EU in these markets—because, in all probability, this is a good EU directive, taking the EU as a whole—and that we had secured appropriate freedoms to build on our own well developed market regulation. It is just a matter of tone, but one has to remember that the idea of having these unified directives is to clean up—though that is too hard a term—or to codify European markets as a whole; and, in general, that is a good thing. As far as the order itself goes, how it was created and how it has been evaluated, I am content.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

10: Clause 156, page 149, line 47, at end insert—
“( ) The first regulations under section 154(1)—
(a) if made by the Treasury, are subject to affirmative resolution procedure;(b) if made by the Scottish Ministers, are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 10 and 11 relate to the public sector exit payment provisions and deliver the commitment I made on Report to make these powers subject to the affirmative procedure on their first use. This was in light of a further report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and we are grateful for the committee’s scrutiny of the Bill.

This first use will be the substantive one to establish the exit payment recovery regime. The regulations will contain full details of the government subsectors, the types of exit payments included, the circumstances in which recovery is mandated and the amount to be recovered. They will also set out the duties upon the persons and employers involved to retain and communicate information and facilitate the repayment.

Amendment 11 allows for changes to this first set of regulations to be made by the negative resolution procedure. These subsequent regulations will contain the minor and technical changes which will be aimed solely at ensuring that the regime remains up to date and fit for purpose. For example, changes will be required to reflect any new public body that is created or closed. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is very much a technical issue. The amendment responds to the recommendations by the DPRR Committee and satisfies in full that committee’s concerns. When the Minister introduced the amendment just a few seconds ago, he did not refer to the supplementary memorandum by BIS which was circulated recently by the committee relating to whether or not the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had in some way impinged on the powers of the Scottish Parliament on this matter. Can he add a few words just to make sure that the record is clear on that?

[Lord Newby]

I am afraid I will have to write to the noble Lord.

Amendment 10 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

11: Clause 156, page 150, line 1, at beginning insert “Any other”

Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps surprisingly, it was with a certain amount of affection that I looked at the possibility of speaking in this debate today because the first Question I answered from the Dispatch Box, nearly two and half years ago, was about the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland. It was one of the most frightening experiences of my life. Despite that affection, I am not sure that I can share the worry, or sadness, of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that we will miss the fun of Committee. There are many adjectives I could think of that would describe a Committee stage on this Bill, but I am afraid I am not sure that “fun” would be near the top of my list. Perhaps that shows a lack of imagination.

I am delighted to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, on his excellent maiden speech. He brings with him a formidable reputation as someone who has been able to persuade people, in a quiet, effective way, to work together for the good of the community at large. It is clear that these qualities are still needed in Northern Ireland today, just as they ever were. Those qualities are going to be needed if we are going to see the kind of economic development that everybody who has spoken on the Bill wishes to see in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, I think, stressed the key issue and the key difference that has characterised the debate today, which is one of expectation. Some in Northern Ireland have very high expectations for the Bill, while others, in your Lordships’ House, have very low expectations. There is very clearly, in this Chamber at least, no agreement on that. At one end of the spectrum we have the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and at the other, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, but it is quite telling that the greatest enthusiasts for this legislation are those in Northern Ireland who, on a daily basis, are grappling with how to make the economy stronger. The political parties and the business community are extremely keen on this. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, on whether we should do this or business rates, the business community have said that this is what they want. It is in response to a combination of the strength of feeling in the business community and of that in the political parties that the Government have entertained this measure.

Whatever view you take about the desirability of doing this, there is clearly a huge amount of uncertainty about what the outcome will be: there are many variables that we cannot possibly bottom out at this point, several years before it comes into force. However, for the rest of my time, I will deal with some of the concerns noble Lords have raised and clarify some of the issues which are clearly uppermost in people’s minds.

The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, began by expressing the hope that there would not be brass-plating—companies just having a brass plate in Northern Ireland and doing business elsewhere. The rules in the Bill contain many features to protect against avoidance. In addition to the exclusion of investment income, the main one is the adoption of rules for large companies which are based on existing international principles. Pure brass-plating simply will not be possible because the rules require a physical presence in Northern Ireland and, more fundamentally, a calculation of Northern Ireland’s trading profits, as if the company were a stand-alone entity, so that concern should not be too great.

A number of noble Lords, starting with the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, asked about the modelling of the impact of the different rates. The example that the Government have set is on the basis of a 12.5% rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland, assuming a 20% UK rate. This is expected to be £325 million in 2019-20, which will be the first steady state year if implementation takes place in April 2017 and if the rate in Northern Ireland from April 2017 is 12.5%. Obviously, the Executive will have the power to consider the impact of setting the rate. The UK Government will continue to work with them on the detail of the block grant deduction.

The noble Lord’s question on modelling led into his second question about the impact on overall income for the Executive and what that could mean in terms of levels of public expenditure. This is a key question that the Executive will have to decide, but one way in which they might decide to progress—I am not saying that they will do this—rather than going through a very big change in one year, is to reduce the rate over a number of years, as we have done in the UK, so that you set a direction of travel, with a rate of 12.5% as the end-point. It would not be necessary to implement it all from year one. The reason why we have spread it over a number of years here is that it spreads the cost, while at the same time giving companies that are investing the UK a sense of where they are going to be in a few years’ time.

The other point in terms of how the Executive will be able to manage a potentially big reduction in their income is that the impact does not all come in in one go. Even if you were to reduce the rate to 12.5% from day one, the impact on the Executive’s budget would rise from £120 million in 2017-18 to £280 million in 2018-19, and then get to the steady state level of £325 million in 2019-20. So, in any view, you will have a phasing in.

My noble friend Lord Trimble pointed out that the Varney report suggested that there was a raft of other things just as important as this tax change for the viability and strength of the Northern Ireland economy, including the labour market, telecommunications and transport; obviously, that is true. We have, as a Government, been helping the development of high-speed broadband and the transport infrastructure in Northern Ireland. But if anybody thinks that we are going to get the full benefit of a reduction of corporation tax while standing still on all these other very important issues, they are clearly incorrect.

I believe that my noble friend Lord Trimble was the first to raise the issue of how the rest of the UK would see this change—a point very eloquently developed by my noble friend Lord Forsyth. As far as Scotland and Wales are concerned, the Smith commission did not recommend devolution of corporation tax, nor did the Silk commission in Wales. The suggestion that there will inevitably be the same kind of pressure from Scotland and Wales as there has been from Northern Ireland is not really borne out by the experience of the views of the political parties in those parts of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Alderdice]

I shall press my noble friend a little. There is a huge focus on what happens if this is introduced and all the modelling and so on. I emphasise to him that part of the purpose of this is so that those people who want to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom and who want to harmonise the arrangements with the rest of the island are, by the device of this Bill, made to face the real political and economic consequences of any such process. The likelihood is that, whether because things would change or not, they will look at the situation, add up the sums and discover that going down this road is not what they want to undertake. This is a completely different thing from the situation in Scotland or Wales where there is not another country that people want to be part of that is a comparator or competitor. If Northern Ireland has this power and decides not to use it, that is a very strong pilot exercise to say to people in Scotland and Wales that there is no point in going down this road because it is not actually a serious economic goer. I want to emphasise that there is a political dimension to this in terms of Northern Ireland that is quite separate from any of the economic debate which has formed a large part of this debate.

[Lord Newby]

That is accepted. My noble friend makes a very strong point.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

No, it is not accepted. My noble friend said that by giving more powers to Northern Ireland, and with it more responsibility, the case for breaking away from the United Kingdom will be blunted. That is precisely the argument which has been used by the Government in Scotland, where we gave more powers after we had won a referendum on independence, and the result is that the nationalists have surged. My noble friend says that no one in Scotland is crying out for corporation tax powers, but the Scottish nationalists are crying out for devo-max. In the past six months, they have gone up to 55% in the opinion polls, and the Labour Party, which has advocated more powers on the same argument as my noble friend has put, is facing annihilation. Can we not learn the lesson that by giving more powers to constituent parts of the United Kingdom, we break the unitary state which is the United Kingdom and give succour to those who wish to smash it up? When my noble friend says that Scotland is not like Ireland because there is no other country it can be, yes there is. It can be Scotland as an independent country outside the United Kingdom. That is the threat.

[Lord Newby]

I am not sure that is a threat in respect of Northern Ireland. I disagree with the noble Lord about both the principle of devolution and its effect. The SNP is at 55% in the polls today but, if I were a betting man, I would say that it will not be at 55% in the polls in 10 years’ time when we have seen how it manages taking responsibility for Scotland’s own income. It seems to me that one of the great weaknesses about the current settlement in Scotland is that the Scots Nats or the Government in Scotland wait to get a cheque from England but, however big it is, it is not big enough, and they do not have the responsibility for raising the money themselves. Now, they will have significantly greater responsibly for raising the money, and that will mean that they have to take more responsibility. I think that is wholly beneficial. I just disagree with the noble Lord, I am afraid.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, asked about building societies and credit unions. The effect and the design of the scheme is that in order to attract genuine economic activity, some mobile trades and activities are excluded, including lending and investing. The rules in respect of lending and investing do not distinguish between types of entity, so banks and building societies are treated on the same basis for that purpose. In respect of credit unions, the Northern Ireland corporation tax regime applies only to trading activity in order to encourage genuine employment. The income from the loans that credit unions make to their members is not currently taxed as trading income, so credit unions do not pay corporation tax on that income. Given those special rules already in place, this income from loans will remain outside the Northern Ireland corporation tax rules. Perversely, to bring the profits within the trading income rules, and so within the Northern Ireland regime, would likely result in them paying more tax. I do not think that credit unions are being disadvantaged by this.

[Lord Trimble]

I am going slightly off the noble Lord’s point on credit unions and back a little bit. I think it is a mistake to rule out financial services. Northern Ireland missed out completely on the changes that have taken place in financial services in the United Kingdom over the last 20 years. We do not have a significant financial service sector at all, yet that sector is much more profitable than nearly all the other sectors of economic activity in the United Kingdom. You are keeping the most valuable service sector, in which we do not have any significant representation, away from us. If you want to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy that really ought to be up at the top of the list.

[Lord Newby]

I am afraid that the Government have not taken that view in the way they have produced this. They have thought about it and decided that they did not want to go down that route.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about the broader impact of the measure and of APD on the rest of the UK. I agree with him—he will not be surprised to know—in that these things need to be dealt with under a constitutional convention. Nobody could claim that the devolution picture across the UK is anything other than rather piecemeal and the time is long overdue for us to try to bring a bit more coherence to it, not least in terms of the English question.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, talked about the necessity for the parties in Northern Ireland to agree on the budget reduction. Everybody agrees that the budget reductions should have been embarked on earlier, but the process has now started and we are determined to encourage and support the Executive in the future as they grapple with these issues. We are totally clear that the Executive must balance the budget and, to do that, welfare reform must go ahead.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, ranged widely over our constitutional issues and problems. He did not mention that Yorkshire Day is in the middle of the Summer Recess and therefore I will be denied the possibility of getting a big set of powers devolved to Yorkshire, for which I am extremely sorry—but we cannot have everything. I think the noble Lord’s characterisation of the extent to which this would complicate the system and make life difficult for businesses was slightly overdone. The rules we are introducing for larger companies are based on existing OECD principles which companies already operate. As he pointed out, the design seeks to retain coherence within the corporation tax regime as whole. Only one variable is being affected and the whole system is being administered by HMRC, with which all the companies already have relationships.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked a number of detailed questions, some of which I hope I can deal with. He asked whether the notional profit attributable to back office was creditable in the rest of the UK tax computation. This notional profit forms part of the attribution of trading profits to the Northern Ireland regime, so will not feature as mainstream—to use the language of the Bill—profit; that is, non-chargeable at the UK rate.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sorry, but my question was about not whether they are creditable within the UK system but whether they would be creditable to a foreign investor.

[Lord Newby]

I shall have to write to the noble Lord on that point, but I suspect that the answer is yes. However, I am not confident, so I shall write to him.

The noble Lord asked about whether an SME that is determined to be within the Northern Ireland regime but has 25% of its activity within the UK has all its corporation tax charged at the Northern Ireland rate. The answer is yes—all its qualifying profits will be taxed at the Northern Ireland rate. It is estimated that more than 99% of the small and medium-sized businesses affected have 100% of their trading activity in Northern Ireland. That seems rather a large figure but, even if it was slightly less than that, the amount of potential tax forgone for the UK in one guise or another is very small.

The noble Lord asked how it would work in calculating the block grant. If and when this power is in place, the Executive’s funding will consist of three elements. The Barnett formula continues to operate, so there is the Barnett-based block grant. There is then a block grant adjustment, so there is a deduction from what they would otherwise have got, to reflect the CT revenues forgone. Then you put back in the CT revenues that you are collecting. That is the principle of it. I accept that actually doing it is quite complicated, but the principles are quite clear.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I shall not make this a dialogue, but is the consequence that on day one the deduction from the block grant would effectively be at the current mainstream corporation tax rate and the benefit at the Northern Ireland corporation tax rate? Clearly there is a differential between the two, which is why you get a substantial negative in the block grant, at least on day one.

[Lord Newby]

Yes, it is the difference between the 20% and the 12.5%.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

Will the Minister just elaborate on that? Let us just say for the sake of argument that it is decided to drop the corporation tax rate to 12.5% on day one. The Government have made an estimate that that would cost £325 million. Would the block grant then have £325 million deducted on day one? Is it based on the estimate? Given that we know how volatile corporation tax is from year to year, how would that work? I do not want to be rude, but it does rather feel as though the Government are introducing a Bill without knowing how it will work in practice, or how much it will cost. It does matter, for reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, pointed out in her speech.

[Lord Newby]

First, Northern Ireland would not lose the £325 million on day one. As I said, there is a transitional period; it takes three years before the full effects work through, because of the time that it takes to get corporation tax returns sorted out. On the second point, on how it works out, the model that is being followed closely follows the model that has been agreed with the Scottish Executive in respect of income tax for Scotland. So a lot of work has been done on that, and the principles and the practice will follow from Scotland to Northern Ireland. I am happy to write to the noble Lord about it—it is extremely technical. But I can assure him that a lot of work has been done on the issue already.

I am well over time. I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that the double Irish arrangement is coming to an end, so he is right to the extent that the rate would go up there.

As I said at the start, this is a measure that is broadly supported in Northern Ireland by the political and business community. It has raised varying expectations. The view of the Government is that it has the potential to encourage genuine investment and help Northern Ireland to become competitive, boosting the entire UK economy and the standard of living of people across Northern Ireland. But it will be for those in Northern Ireland—business and politicians alike—to ensure that, if and when the Bill comes into effect, it has the desired effect.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Income Tax: Top Rate

Lord Newby Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, in my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s absence, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the latest projections show that income tax receipts from additional rate taxpayers in 2013-14 were £45.9 billion, compared with £38 billion in 2012-13, which was the last year when the additional rate was 50%.

[Lord Borwick]

My Lords, there was therefore an £8 billion increase in revenue as a result of lowering tax by 5%. Would my noble friend agree that Labour’s policy of putting the tax rate back up would not increase revenue, but rather discourage entrepreneurs, who are so responsible for increasing employment?

[Lord Newby]

Yes, my Lords.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise, along with most analysts, that the figures that he has just given have probably been distorted by the practice of forestalling? Does he realise that such practice by some top rate taxpayers meant that they delayed their returns from 2012 to 2013 to take advantage of the 5% top rate tax cut in the following year, after it was announced in the 2012 Budget? Instead of drawing glib conclusions from the figures that he has given, would he and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs not realise that each 1% increase on the top rate of income tax can generate an extra £1.1 billion? Therefore, a cut can lose £5 billion in any year following the first year after the tax cut. When we have—

[Lord Kinnock]

When we have a deficit of £90 billion, can the country really afford that when we are supposed to be all in it together?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord’s figures are just completely wrong. The figures produced by HMRC, which I am sure he has read, showed that its central estimate of the effect of reducing the top rate from 50p to 45p was a cost of £100 million, against which should be set—among other changes that this Government have made that exclusively hit the very affluent—the changes in disguised remuneration, which brought in £3.5 billion this Parliament, and the reduction in pensions tax relief, which will bring in £5 billion a year.

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, following up on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, does the Minister accept that a by-product of the much welcomed coalition pressure on banks and other organisations in the City to reduce bonuses, which I assume is welcomed by the Labour Party, has been a reduction in tax revenues?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there has been a reduction in the amount paid in bonuses in the City. This will undoubtedly have meant a fall in the amount of tax on those bonuses, but I am sure that the whole House will welcome that development and hope that it will lead to something of a change in bank culture.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the Minister to a recent ONS study which looked at the combination of direct and indirect taxation and found that the group paying most—paying more than the really well-off—was in the bottom quartile. Is not the big social injustice in the tax system in this country that the poorest are indeed paying the most? That is not helped by the Chancellor, George Osborne, and his cohorts rubbishing social security and welfare payments. Does the Minister not agree that that only compounds and exacerbates the problem that we have in our iniquitous tax system?

[Lord Newby]

But, my Lords, the top 1% of income tax payers is now paying between 27% and 28% of all income tax, which is a higher proportion than at any point during the last Labour Government. The two changes that I have mentioned, which bring in more than £6 billion extra a year, apply only to the highest earners.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, despite the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, is it not true that lowering tax rates increases revenue, and does that not make it rather surprising that the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to lower the top rate to 40%?

[Lord Newby]

No, my Lords, it does not. HRMC estimates that if you reduce the top tax rate from 45% to 40%, the likely cost to the Exchequer will be about £1 billion.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister not acknowledge that in fact the very wealthy have various stratagems for reducing the impact of taxation? That is why, whatever the Government do, it does not produce the resources that the nation needs. Why does the Conservative Party not drop the idea that supporting the wealthy will somehow lead to a trickle-down advantage for the rest of the community, when the disparity between the wealthy and the poorest in our society is growing wider, and why do they not address themselves to the real issue, which is that the vast majority of people in this country are poorer under this coalition?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I do not know which bits of that question to deal with first. However, given the time, I just point out to the noble Lord that the group of the population whose income, by percentage and absolute amount, has suffered most and which has lost the most is the top 20%. They have seen a 3% cut in their income, which is a greater cut than has been experienced by any other tranche. The noble Lord does not like it because it is an inconvenient truth, but it does not stop it being a truth.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that during the life of this Government corporation tax has fallen from 28% to 21% but corporate taxation revenues from companies has increased from £35.8 billion to £39.3 billion? That underlines the point made by my noble friend Lord Borwick that a decrease in rates of tax helps to increase revenue, reducing the biggest problem that we face at the moment—the deficit.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it is important to have competitive corporate tax rates, which is why we have reduced them, although it is obviously the case that you reach the point as you are reducing taxes when you lose revenue. The trick is to get the balance right, which is what we have done by reducing corporation tax, for example, and by putting capital gains tax up very significantly from the level it was under the Labour Government.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

Could the Minister explain how it is that some wealthy people—leaders of our big companies—manage to get themselves domiciled abroad, in places such as Hong Kong, as the senior management of HSBC has done? Surely, that is the real tax dodge.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, we have taken a number of measures to make sure that non-doms pay more per annum and have introduced a new charge on non-doms of £90,000 a year for those who are in the UK for a long time.

Money Advice Service

Lord Newby Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for raising this important issue. As outgoing chair of StepChange, he is particularly well placed to do that. As part of my preparation for today’s debate, I looked at the StepChange website and was very impressed at the ease with which I would be able to use it if I needed debt advice. However, I am also very aware, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, pointed out, that many people want face-to-face advice. I will turn later to telephone and online advice. The work that Citizens Advice and the Money Advice Trust do in terms of debt advice is most impressive.

The review that is the subject of today’s debate was established by the Government to ensure that consumers’ needs were being adequately met. It was charged with two things: first, assessing how effectively and efficiently the Money Advice Service is meeting the need for consumer education and advice; and, secondly, recommending any changes to MAS’s role, approach and delivery models that would enable it better to meet this need. The review was led by Christine Farnish and I would like to take this opportunity to thank her and her team for all of their efforts.

The review explores how MAS can improve the quality, reach and cost effectiveness of the debt advice it funds. It also raises important questions about how MAS ensures consumers have access to good quality and trustworthy tools and information to help them manage their money and understand financial products, including with regard to the strategic role that MAS should seek to play in influencing others who provide information and advice to consumers.

As the noble Lord pointed out, the Government have received the report and are currently considering it. They have decided, sensibly I think, that they will publish their response when they publish the report. They are well along the way to being able to do that, although I am sorry that they were unable to do it in time for today. They will publish the report and their response in the coming weeks.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the Government’s response more generally to the TSC report but HMT has already responded to this report in the form of a letter from the former FST, Sajid Javid, which was published. This response accepted the central recommendation, which was to undertake an independent review. The noble Lord also raised the spectre of the review recommending the abolition of MAS. The Government asked Christine Farnish to look at how MAS could improve its work rather than whether it should be abolished. The Government believe that MAS has important ongoing functions to play in helping individuals improve their financial confidence and resilience.

On the broad approach which the Government have taken in this area, we believe that everyone, regardless of circumstance, should have access to money and debt advice. That is crucial because helping individuals to improve their financial confidence and resilience also gives wider social and economic benefits and helps to ensure that retail financial markets are well functioning and competitive.

MAS was set up to give people the support they need to manage their money well. Since 2012, it has also had a statutory responsibility for co-ordinating the provision of debt advice. It is now the largest single funder of free debt advice in the UK and has made significant progress in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of debt advice since being given these responsibilities by government. Giving MAS statutory responsibility for debt advice, funding and co-ordination has put the funding arrangements for free debt advice on a far more sustainable footing. From the coming financial year, this funding base will expand to include firms authorised by the FCA for consumer credit activities, including payday lenders. The Government are keen to see the funding base broaden further to reflect that debt problems are caused by a number of factors, including falling behind on bills as well as falling behind on repayments.

In ensuring debt advice is able to reach as many people as possible, the Government recognise the importance of consumers being able to access advice through the most appropriate channel, be it online, face-to-face or by telephone. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, raised an interesting point in this respect. From the Government’s point of view, the more that people can access debt advice and, indeed, advice more generally, online and by phone is welcome for two reasons. First, it is easier for them because there is more flexibility about how they do it, and secondly, it is better for the Government in many ways because people accessing advice online is much more cost-effective. If everybody were doing that instead of needing face-to-face advice, it would save the Government a lot of money, which they are always keen to do. Having looked at the website, the challenge is that there will be many people who have pretty chaotic financial circumstances and will need face-to-face advice to get to the end point. We are offering three strands of advice—online, telephone and face-to-face—on pension flexibility that we are about to introduce and it will be interesting to see how that breaks down. There we are giving people an equal opportunity to use any of those strands and that might help inform how we look at providing debt advice and other forms of advice. One of the challenges we have at the moment is trying to work out what that split is going to be, but until we start, we do not know.

The Government also believe it is essential that the right options and incentives are available to consumers to encourage them to deal with their debts. For example, the Government share the interest in the idea of giving consumers in debt repayment plans a breathing space from interest and charges and are actively considering what further steps might be taken in this area.

As well as being able and encouraged to access free debt advice, consumers must have the assurance that the organisation and advisers they engage with are operating to the highest standards. That is why we agreed with not-for-profit debt advisers that they should be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and be held to the same conduct standards as for debt management firms in order to maintain the confidence of clients. However, the Government have also ensured that the new FCA regulatory regime subjects not-for-profit debt advice providers to proportionate regulatory burdens, including placing them in the lower cost limited permission regime, to encourage the supply of free debt advice that meets consumers’ needs.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised the importance of encouraging people to have rainy-day savings. I agree with him on that. One of the challenges is to ensure that a range of products is easily available for people, particularly those on low incomes. We are seeing two big developments. One is credit unions. We are now in the happy position of there being almost a bidding war between the political parties about how many more million members they want credit unions to have by 2020, which is very healthy for credit unions. Credit unions are expanding and, more importantly, are expanding the range of products they have available, not least so that young people who want to be able to do the maximum number of financial transactions online or on their phone will increasingly be able to do that via credit unions. Secondly, the main banks’ agreement last December about a basic bank account with more features than was previously the case is another helpful way to get more people into a position where it is easier for them to save.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the right reverend Prelate raised the big issue of the appropriate level of debt. They share a concern that personal debt is now rising to pre-crisis levels or going beyond it. What we have seen, as the right reverend Prelate said, is a complete change in attitude towards debt from that of my parents’ generation, who grew up in an environment where the Great Depression meant that people were in severe financial difficulties because there was not always a very effective state safety net and there was therefore a huge incentive for people on modest means to save modest amounts for a rainy day—and they did. That incentive has gone, to a certain extent. My children and their friends have a completely different view of debt from the one I have, and a very, very different view from that of my parents. How we strike a balance is a big challenge.

Working in schools is definitely very important, as the right reverend Prelate said. This Government have introduced financial literacy into the secondary curriculum but, as he says, primary schools are potentially—and actually—more important. That is why the work that is just starting, such as LifeSavers, is very important. It is also important not just that we get credit unions into schools but that we encourage building societies and banks to go into schools and get children saving at a young age. If you get them saving in a structured way at a very young age, they are much more likely to save later on.

I am out of time. This is a very important issue. The report and the Government’s response will be published shortly. We will have the opportunity to debate it then. In the mean time, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue today.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Over the years, Parliament has recognised the unfairness of locking certain groups out of the national insurance system and has amended the rules accordingly. This is another unfairness, and the amendment poses a solution. Basically, it says that if you are unemployed and looking for work, you can receive £72 a week in JSA and enter the NI system. So if a worker is employed and earning the annual equivalent of JSA—that is, approximately £3,750—they should be eligible for inclusion in the national insurance system.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is again bringing to our attention the issue of workers in multiple low-paid jobs. We debated this matter in Committee and the noble Baroness put forward a number of proposals then for dealing with the situation. We have before us today a proposal to include people with earnings at or above the annual value of jobseeker’s allowance. As contributory jobseeker’s allowance is payable for only six months and there are different amounts, I assume that the noble Baroness means to proxy the higher rate of around £4,000.

Just so that we are clear about the figures that we are talking about, I can confirm the characteristics of the workers that the noble Baroness is concerned about. They are people whose earnings in a single job fall below the threshold for paying or being credited with national insurance, that threshold being £5,700. That is the band of people the amendment is dealing with.

The noble Baroness has been very dogged on this issue and has suggested a number of other ways in which we might deal with it, such as changing the system to allow earnings to be aggregated; treating those people as self-employed and being able to pay class 2 contributions; treating them as unemployed and being able to receive NI credits; or lowering the earnings entry point for access to the NI system to £3,000 or, now, £4,000.

However, as I explained in our previous debate, I am afraid that none of those solutions is at all straightforward and there is a danger that they could all, to a greater or lesser extent, involve unnecessary administrative expenditure, perverse outcomes and possible new inequalities in the national insurance system. I know that such potential unintended consequences are not the noble Baroness’s intention, but they exist and they underline the reason for treading carefully in this area.

The proposal before us today would, for example, create a new cliff edge for those who earn below the threshold and increase the exchequer cost in terms of both administration and benefits paid, with little or no corresponding revenue. It would also bring in workers who might not need protection, such as students with weekend jobs working fewer than 12 hours a week. Such students are highly likely to gain sufficient years to qualify for a full state pension later in their working lives. The noble Baroness’s other solutions would increase the burdens on businesses, require a significant compliance regime to police people’s employment status or need to be extended to everyone with more than one job in a tax year to avoid unfair consequences.

The noble Baroness has expressed a view on the likely size of the group, the persistence of this type of work pattern and its effect on benefit entitlements. In February, the Department for Work and Pensions published updated estimates that around 50,000 people a year have multiple low-paid jobs and are not paying, or being treated as paying, national insurance that they would otherwise do if their earnings were aggregated —that is 0.2% of the workforce.

In response to concerns from your Lordships’ House during debate on the Pensions Bill last year, the DWP set up a forum of analytical experts last July, with an independent chair, of which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is a member. This forum’s remit is to consider the available evidence, the characteristics of this group, the effect of zero-hours contracts and the implications for state pension outcomes. The forum has looked at a number of alternative data sources, but none was found to provide more reliable information than that available from the Labour Force Survey on which DWP based its analysis. Having been party to the forum, the noble Baroness will be aware that it has yet to draw any firm conclusions, so in our view it would be premature to legislate now.

I accept that, of this group of 50,000 people, around 80% are women. However, this population is by no means static. Many of those affected are likely to build up their national insurance record in the future through paid or credited contributions. Under state pension reform, over 80% of people would be entitled to the full pension amount by the mid-2030s. There is also no evidence that this is a growing problem. The number of women working in two or more jobs has hardly changed for the past 10 years, remaining at about 5% of those in work. Furthermore, the recent Johnson review concluded that earnings change significantly over a lifetime and most low earners go on to earn more.

I reassure the noble Baroness and the House that the Government are continuing work in this area, and the findings of the forum, once available, will help inform what, if any, action should be taken. However, I believe that it would be premature to pass this amendment now. In part, that is because the point of setting up the forum was to examine the evidence presented and then move to the next stage. Secondly, before taking any action in this very complicated area, we should undertake a full analysis of the costs and benefits of the various courses before us—something that, in general terms, I believe the noble Baroness has been in favour of.

I doubt that I shall have satisfied the noble Baroness, but none the less I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for her superb contribution. She put it wonderfully well.

Although the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, intervened, I thought that he might make a fuller contribution. His basic charge was that we did not do anything about this. We did. I do not normally go around shouting about this, but we persuaded James Purnell that grandparents who were caring for children and carers of older people should come into the national insurance system and be credited at 20 hours a week. Previously, carers of older people came into the system only if they worked for 35 hours a week—effectively full time—for one person only. I persuaded the then Secretary of State that a carer doing more than 20 hours a week should get, not carer’s allowance, but national insurance credit. I also persuaded him that grandparents caring for their grandchildren and thus freeing their daughter to work should benefit from what was then HRP. This was effectively transferred from the daughter, who, since in work, would be in the national insurance system in her own right. I thank James Purnell, the last Secretary of State with whom I worked on this, who agreed both those changes.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

75: Clause 152, page 141, line 29, leave out “prescribed” and insert “qualifying”

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, Clauses 152 to 154 give Her Majesty’s Treasury powers to make UK-wide regulations with regard to public sector exit payments. Amendments 77 to 80 seek to address concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that these powers are framed more broadly than is required for the stated policy intent. The Government are grateful to the DPRRC for its scrutiny of the Bill.

Since the Government have now consulted on the detailed use of the powers, we are able to narrow their scope to match our settled intentions for implementation. This intention is that exit payments may only be recovered within a year of exit from the employment or office in respect of which the payment was made. None the less, in order for the regime to work effectively, it is crucial that we retain sufficient flexibility in the powers to enable the regulations to deliver the policy intent. This flexibility may include the types of exit payments that can be recovered to circumvent any potential for avoidance by using new or novel types of payment. Regulations will also set out prescribed circumstances for recovery, so that subsectors can be adequately defined and in order to accommodate changes in the machinery of government. Both flexibilities will be subject to the overriding requirement of return to the public sector within a year.

Further to the DPRRC’s most recent report, I can also announce today that the Government intend to bring further amendments at Third Reading to enable the first set of the secondary regulations to be made by the affirmative procedure. This first use will be the substantive one, which establishes the exit payment recovery regime. Further regulations which make minor and technical changes, for example to the list of bodies covered by the regulations, will be made by the negative resolution procedure. I should take the opportunity to say that we have also published draft regulations which will provide a further indication of how these powers are intended to be used.

Amendment 81 is a minor and technical amendment to ensure that the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body falls under the scope of Scottish exit payment regulations. The body has the duty to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is provided with the property, staff and services required. It controls its own remuneration, and the Government and Scottish Government always intended for it to fall within the Scottish exit payment regime.

Finally, Amendments 82 and 83 are further minor and technical amendments to correct potential ambiguity in the drafting of Clause 159. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the amendments. He will be pleased to know that at this time of night we do not wish to pick holes in them. We think that they address an understandable concern, which I suppose became apparent in the NHS reorganisation that we thought we would never see where people disappeared out of one door and came back through another. It is right that a hole is being plugged that needs to be plugged. I welcome the point made about flexibility to prevent any avoidance tactics and the assurance that some of the important further amendments will be the subject of affirmative resolution. We are happy to support them.

Electronic Commerce Directive (Financial Services and Markets) (Amendment) Order 2015

Lord Newby Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 17 December 2014, 21 and 29 January and 3 February 2015 be approved.

Relevant documents: 17th, 21st and 22nd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 2 March.

Motions agreed.

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Lord Newby Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

7: Clause 13, page 13, line 18, leave out from second “instrument,” to end of line 19 and insert “if”

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 7 to 19 and 84 make two technical but essential changes to the cheque-clearing provisions relating, first, to consistency in the treatment of cheque and non-cheque paper instruments and, secondly, to the continuation of current statutory protections for the paying customer.

Amendments 7 to 9 and 19 are designed to ensure that non-cheque instruments, such as warrants and travellers’ cheques, are treated in the same way as traditional paper cheques under the new provisions for electronic presentment. Under the new legislation for cheque imaging, as currently drafted, it would be possible for corporate customers and other large non-bank customers to make arrangements to submit cheque images directly to the central switch that clears cheque transactions for all member banks, rather than their bank submitting images on their behalf. This would make the clearing process more efficient. However, the current drafting means that this option will not be available for non-cheque paper instruments that are not drawn on a bank.

The Government’s policy intention is to provide for a system that treats cheques and non-cheques in the same way, and therefore it is necessary to make these amendments to ensure the equal treatment of non-cheque instruments in all circumstances of presentment. On the basis of current practice, this approach does not present any difficulties. However, it is possible that the position could change in the future—for example, as a result of the development of new types of instruments that do not currently exist. For this reason, Amendment 9 confers a power on the Treasury to restrict the circumstances in which presentment by image is permissible. This power is intended to be used to deal only with any unforeseen issues that may arise in the future and could not be used to have any retrospective effect on instruments that have already been presented by image. It is subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment 12 is intended to ensure the continuation of current statutory protections for the paying customer. Under the existing cheque clearing system, a customer who makes a payment with a cheque can request the original cheque to be stamped “paid”, which stands as prima facie evidence that the payee has received the amount payable. This provides a protection for the payer in situations where the payee claims that they have not received payment.

The legislation for cheque imaging does not provide for an equivalent protection when cheques or other paper instruments are paid in by electronic image and the physical instrument does not end up in the possession of a bank. It has become clear that the loss of this protection would remove a useful service currently relied upon by some cheque users. Therefore, it is necessary to make an amendment to preserve this type of protection for the paying customer under electronic cheque clearing. This amendment will confer a power on the Treasury to make appropriate provision in regulations, subject to the affirmative procedure, because the precise nature of the evidence to be provided to the payer may depend on the technical design of the clearing system. The regulations will be able to set out the nature of the evidence to be provided to the payer and the effect of that evidence, including the weight to be given to such evidence.

Amendments 10, 11, 13 to 18 and 84 are consequential amendments dealing with the procedure for making regulations under Amendments 9 and 12, and they provide minor and technical clarifications of the drafting.

To conclude, these amendments will ensure that the provisions for electronic presentment treat cheques and non-cheques consistently and that existing customer protections continue under the new system. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I welcome the contribution to this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and for his helpful explanation of the matters that are being considered by this large group of amendments. We had a fair bash at this in Committee, so I was a little surprised to see so many additional regulations on this matter, particularly as this is an attempt to simplify rather than make more complicated an already rather obscure area of financial transactions. Indeed, in some senses these amendments seem to take us back rather than forward in that they seem to provide a bolstering of a paper-based or evidence-based solution to a number of things that one would have hoped could have moved on to an electronic age. But I am sure that the intention behind them is entirely correct, and we support the general direction of the move.

I wanted to pick up on one point. In the wording of the amendments on the Marshalled List there is reference to the power for the Treasury to make regulations, but it does not specify how they are to be exercised in practice. I agree that the number of occasions will be limited, but the Minister mentioned that the first group would be subject to the affirmative procedure and did not say anything about the second or third groups and whether they would be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedures. Could he clarify that for me please before we leave this point? If it is too difficult to do now, I am very happy to have that in correspondence, but we have no objection to this in general.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I think I said that the second group would be subject to affirmative resolution. My understanding is that the two issues that we are debating will both be subject to the affirmative procedure. If I am mistaken, of course I will write to the noble Lord.

Amendment 7 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

8: Clause 13, page 13, line 22, after “to” insert “regulations under subsection (1A) and to”