Ministerial Appointments: Vetting and Managing Conflicts of Interest

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord is right. The other point worth making is that, as a Minister, it is your personal responsibility to make it known to your Permanent Secretary and, if appropriate, to the independent adviser, what conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest you might have. This is a process that is gone through scrupulously, in my experience, when Ministers are appointed.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, transparency is the biggest antidote to sleaze, which revolves around money. The best way of dealing with this is to ensure that all Ministers publish their tax returns. That policy can be made without waiting for any report from the independent ethics adviser. What objections can the Minister have to that suggestion?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

There is an issue of balance between privacy and the need to know—the transparency. I have often engaged with the noble Lord on these tax issues and the Prime Minister himself has said that he will publish his tax return, but moving to a different system raises quite a lot of issues of balance. I come back to my point about personal responsibility and explaining where there are these issues or might be conflicts of interest when you are a Minister, or if circumstances change.

Government Contracts: Bain & Company

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

There is corporate law which involves the suspension of directors, but I am not able to speak about it today; it is dealt with by another department. However, our new Procurement Bill improves the arrangements for debarment where exclusion is needed, perhaps because there has been insolvency, dishonesty, impropriety or a serious breach of ethical and professional standards. We will discuss that in this House on Report next week. I think we are moving forward in this area although we have to be fair and balanced, as the UK Government always try to be.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, there is no central enforcer of corporate law in the UK and the whole scene is very disjointed. While the Minister is in the mood to tackle corruption, can I invite her to tell the House whether any of the big four accounting firms, whose tax avoidance schemes have been declared unlawful by the courts, have at any time during the last 12 years been investigated, prosecuted or fined, or have the Government even bothered to recover a penny of the legal costs?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, but it goes rather beyond today’s Question. However, I can say that the Cabinet Office conducted an in-depth review into KPMG following the finding against the firm of dishonesty in its role in the sale of the Silentnight group of companies. In fact, the review concluded that KPMG should not be excluded because it had carried out self-cleaning measures —that is where a company moves to demonstrate reliability and improve its compliance systems. It is very important that companies can do the right thing, particularly where mistakes have been made.

Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the growth plan is based on the “horse and sparrow” economic theory. Its basic idea is that, if you feed the already well-fed horses additional oats, something will pass to the roadside to feed the sparrows, which will then magically lay some golden eggs and solve all our problems. Such economics were thoroughly debunked by the writings of people such as JK Galbraith, and there is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the basis of the Government’s economic plan. Handing tax cuts to the richest might enable them to speculate on the stock market, buy a few yachts, Lamborghinis, artworks, foreign holidays and second homes, but it has never enabled any country to build a sustainable economy.

The promised cut in the basic rate of income tax is illusory; the tiny gain will be wiped out by the stealth taxes, as the Government have already frozen personal allowances and income tax thresholds. In any case, the cut in basic rate of income tax will do absolutely nothing for 21 million adults whose annual income is less than £12,570. They will benefit zero; they are at the bottom of the pile, and they cannot contribute to a sustained economic growth. The Government by default appear to be relying on 30% of the population to fuel the economic growth; that has not worked anywhere on this planet, not even in South America, so I do not know how the Government are going to do this.

Since 2010, the UK has had low interest rates, inflation, corporation tax rates and a whole variety of tax reliefs to persuade companies to increase their investment. Throughout the 2010s, the UK put 16.9% of its GDP into productive assets and was ranked third from bottom in the EU productive investment league; only Greece and Portugal were below it. Could the Minister explain why the low corporation tax rates did not secure greater investment before, and how on earth they are going to do it the next time? Previous corporation tax cuts actually fuelled dividends, most of which were paid untaxed to foreign investors. Major UK companies are currently paying up to 80% of their earnings in dividends and share buy-backs. The Government’s growth plan makes no mention of any reform of short-termism or corporate governance, or any other pressures on corporations.

Good purchasing power in the hands of the masses is a necessary condition for corporate investment but is utterly neglected by the Government. In 1976, workers’ share of GDP in the form of wages and salaries was 65.1%; it is now less than 50%, the biggest decline in any western economy. If people have not got the money, they cannot buy—why would any company want to invest in productive assets? The Government have done absolutely nothing about that. Regressive taxation has been continuously championed by the Government and has further depleted the purchasing power of the low and middle-income households. The poorest 10% of households pay 47.6% of their gross income in direct and indirect taxes, compared to the richest 10%, who pay only 33.5%. The mini-Budget could have reduced VAT, but it did not actually do that—it did not really want to improve the purchasing power of the people at the bottom.

To sum up, the mini-Budget hoovers wealth upwards. It does not increase the people’s purchasing power, pays no attention to corporate governance or to short-termism or reasons for low investment, and it does not really provide any basis whatever for building a sound economy.

Elections Bill

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, although I do not think it goes to the source of the problem. The source of the problem is the massive increase in the electorate contained within this Bill. We know from the impact assessment and I know from written replies I have had from the Minister that it increases the electoral roll of people living abroad—many of whom have lived abroad for decades—from around 1 million to 3.3 million, an increase of 2.3 million names. I remind the House that these will overwhelmingly be people who have lived abroad for more than 15 years—for many, 50 or 60 years —and who have no reasonable expectation of ever returning to this country. The Bill makes it easier for this registration to persist as, once on the register, names now remain for three years as opposed to one year previously, and you can get on the electoral roll by the process of attestation—in other words, providing you can get someone to attest that you lived at 22 Station Road 60 years ago, even though 22 Station Road has been demolished and you have not been back since, and that you are a bona fide former resident of the United Kingdom.

To me, that is wrong in principle, but I shall also apply it at a constituency level—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, raised this and I can give him some of the answer. Under the present system, with the 15-year rule on residence that is allowed, in London and Westminster, 2.43% of voters at the last election were overseas voters. Let us assume that that increases by three, once these 2.3 million are added to the register. You could then have constituencies in the United Kingdom with 6,000 or 7,000 voters in an electorate of 73,000 who have no obvious connection whatsoever with the constituency in which they are voting. That, it seems to me, is wrong.

Whatever your view is, the absolute basis of our electoral system—which I cherish; I have to be controversial here by saying I am a powerful supporter of first past the post and single-member constituencies—is that representation, for a general election, is based on where you live. That is a very good basis for registration and voting, it seems to me. But, no, we are going to add 2.3 million people to the register who never lived in the country—not in recent memory.

In order to do this, the Government are spending some £15 million. I wish that they would show the same anxiety and commitment on making sure that people resident within the United Kingdom and not on the register at present were added instead of spending £15 million on getting people to vote in individual constituencies—possible decisively, affecting the result—who simply do not live in the area.

I am very sorry that this Bill has extended the period of residence from 15 years to life. I hope that the Minister can improve on his answer when I raised this before; he asked what on earth is the basis for objecting to supporting a 15-year rule, which says that—I quote him loosely—if you have been abroad for 15 years, you can vote in an election, but if you have been abroad for 15 years and a day, you cannot vote in an election. That really is a thin argument; he really can do better than that. That applies to any boundary—why do we say people can vote at 18 but not at 17 and 364 days? We can all find numerous examples of how people draw boundaries.

The problem of overseas voting—and here I find myself agreeing with the Green Party, which I do not on every occasion—is that with the possibility of this initial problem, which is that you can vote however long you have been away from the country, you can also now provide funds for parties. It means, as has already been said, that, in theory, a party could be almost entirely financed by people living abroad with no intention of returning to the United Kingdom or of living with the consequences of their vote. That is the other crucial element in our democracy: you live to see the consequences of your vote. People who voted Conservative—I hope a lot of them vote Labour at the next election—bear some responsibility for what is happening in the country at the moment. It is not the same responsibility as the Minister, of course, but they have some responsibility. Of course, if you live abroad, vote from abroad, remain abroad and intend to remain abroad, then you do not live with the consequences of your vote.

I very much regret that, somehow or other, this massive extension of the franchise is in this Bill, without any compensating extension of the franchise for people in this country who are not on the electoral roll. I have seen no sensible, adequate defence of it so far. I am sure that the Minister will do his best, which he is bound to do, but we have made a step in our democracy that violates the principle of representation by place of residence and adds the problem of enabling parties to be massively financed by people living and working permanently abroad.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lords who have already spoken. I will speak briefly about Amendment 67. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish an independent committee to report on the creation of what I call a foundation for democracy, whose sole aim is to prevent the rich and corporations from directly funding political parties and hijacking the political system. Private money in our political system is a cancer, and the issue has not really been adequately addressed by this Bill.

In 1863, US President Abraham Lincoln visualised democracy as a

“government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

Some 160 years later, that remains elusive—we are light years away from it. Yes, people vote, but political power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of those who can fund political parties and get favour in return. Their preferences are prioritised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Is the noble Lord not aware that Report is for short, sharp speeches, not this endless diatribe he is currently inflicting upon us?

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his observation. I am sure that members of the public would be quite interested to note that when an alternative proposal is put forward, it is called a “diatribe”. That kind of confinement of alternative, competing discourses to negative spaces does not do any good. But the message I want to get across is that there is a corrosive element at the heart of our democracy that can be dealt with only by ending the receipt of any private money by any political party.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of Report is to report back on things that were inadequately dealt with in Committee. Amendment 69, which I am speaking to, was inadequately dealt with in Committee. We had a debate and a very unsatisfactory answer, so I want to return to it—not at the same length as in Committee, but nevertheless in some detail that might make for uncomfortable listening for different parties in the House.

The idea is for risk assessment and due diligence policies to be used to control and look at procedures on political donations. What is the problem? Dirty money in the UK leaves parties exposed to malign influence, risks fostering dependence on the proceeds of crime and other dubious funds, and undermines the integrity of the electoral system. PPERA does not require UK political parties to run anti-money laundering checks on donors. In fact, there are no indications that parties do robust checks on the source of donations, nor that parties reject donations after such checks have been made. As the UK’s anti-money laundering framework has been progressively tightened over the last decade—I pay tribute to the current Government on this issue, as I have done before—political parties’ minimal checks have become an increasingly glaring anomaly. Examples from the media suggest that if parties check the source of donations at all, they are inadequate and fail to prevent the flow of tainted money into UK politics.

The Electoral Commission has argued since 2018 that risk management principles from anti-money laundering checks by businesses could apply to election finance. In July 2021, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that parties have anti-money laundering style procedures to determine the true source of donations.

How would Amendment 69 address the problem? It would update PPERA to require parties to develop and publish reasonable and proportionate risk-based policies for identifying the true source of donations above £7,500—we are not looking at small donations here. Parties would need to have reasonable and proportionate risk assessment and due diligence controls and procedures in respect of those policies, as provided for in a statutory instrument. For any donation or an aggregate amount exceeding £7,500, parties would need to undertake enhanced due diligence checks, with a simplified process thereafter. Donors giving over £7,500 would need to declare whether their business is in a high-risk sector, which is defined in the amendment, and whether they have been under formal investigation or convicted of certain offences. Parties would need to include a statement of risk management in their annual accounts identifying that.

What have the parties done about due diligence checks on donations? The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report, Regulating Election Finance, identified broad support for exploring anti-money laundering style regulations from the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Scottish National Party. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats agreed that there was merit in exploring this style of regulations but that it would be important to think about how the process would work and the administrative workload involved. The Conservative Party told the Committee on Standards in Public Life that it thought that current regulations for donations were sufficient.

In their response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation that parties should have procedures in place for the true source of donations, the Government said that

“it is very important to balance the need for parties and other campaigners to generate funds against the cost of actually carrying out checks on donations, to ensure they come from permissible sources. We think the current rules are proportionate and achieve this balance.”

When a version of Amendment 69 was debated in Committee—it was rather longer; it is still long but it has been tightened up a bit—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that

“all we can do is keep the rules under review. I am suggesting that in this particular area, the balance is about right.”—[Official Report, 28/3/22; col. 1378.]

Let us look at the balance: due diligence checks would be a relatively low administrative workload. If due diligence checks had been required on donations above £7,500 in 2021, the Liberal Democrats would have conducted checks on just 11% of donors, or 72 donations out of 642; Labour on 25%, or 133 out of 536; the Greens on 29.2%, or 19 out of 65; and the SNP on 63%, or seven out of 11. This means that, at most, Labour would have had to do checks on one donation every 2.7 days over the course of a year, and the Liberal Democrats would have had to do one check every five days. Obviously, because some donations come from the same donor, it would probably be less frequent than that.

Now we come to the Conservatives; no wonder we get complaints from the Tory Benches about what is being said. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but that was a very unfortunate intervention. The Conservatives would have checked 51.5% of donors— 457 donations out of a total of 887 were of £7,500 or more. Of course, this reflects their greater resources, with donations of almost £19 million in 2021—around double what Labour received.

I have three examples of potentially suspect donations. I gave a lot more in Committee, and I stand by them all; they are all there on the record. All major political parties have accepted potentially suspect donations from individuals and companies that were under investigation or later found to be involved in economic crime. The media has reported on a catalogue of such donations, with Spotlight on Corruption providing most of the information. The Conservatives received £2 million in cash donations from Lycamobile, a company whose premises were raided by French authorities in 2016 on suspicion of money laundering, leading to the arrest of the company’s directors. Despite evidence emerging in 2015 that Lycamobile employees were dropping off rucksacks full of cash at post offices across London, the party took a further £587,000 from the company until July 2017.

Elections Bill

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Before my noble friend Lord Hayward sat down, the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, rose to intervene. Perhaps we could allow the noble Lord’s intervention.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

Thank you very much. I certainly have not come across any evidence to suggest that ID cards are an answer to the problem of voter fraud. I would like to broaden the debate a little and think about the consequences. I grew up in east London, where it was not unusual for people of certain backgrounds to be stopped in the street by the police and asked to show ID, when you are not required to carry any ID. What would happen in this brave new world when the police stopped people and said, “By the way, you now have an official ID. Have you not got it? Can you not bring it from home and report to the police station?” What would be the consequences for the young people who are unwilling or unable to produce those officially sanctioned ID cards? Would that drive a wedge between the police and the community? Would that criminalise people? Would that fuel more dissatisfaction with our parliamentary system? Would that fuel social instability? I would like to hear from the Minister where this ID concern will stop. What would be the broader social consequences? It seems to me that we would be opening up American-type social problems. They would be imported here, because people simply do not have or cannot produce officially sanctioned ID cards.

It is minorities who will be targeted. It is well known and well documented that the police target minorities. They would have a new authority to wield to criminalise minorities. I would love to hear the Minister’s views on that.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, voter ID is not something dreamed up by the Government with the express intention of suppressing voter turnout, as various noble Lords have come perilously close to suggesting in both today’s debate and our debates last week. I am sure that, as parliamentarians, we all share a belief in the centrality of elections to our democracy and a desire to achieve the highest standards of integrity and participation. I believe that it would be a unworthy slur to suggest that my party believes anything else. The plain fact is that the Electoral Commission has recommended voter ID, as have international election observers. Most European countries require it; Northern Ireland has had it for nearly 40 years.

Elections Bill

Lord Sikka Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill is part of a power grab by the Government and it is hard to find any redeeming features in it. I cannot support the imposition of photo ID for voting, against which many noble Lords have already spoken eloquently.

Where exactly is the evidence of voter fraud? In 2019, there was a general election, a European Parliament election, local council elections, mayoral elections and police and crime commissioner elections. There were only four convictions and two cautions for voter fraud in all those elections put together.

More importantly, where are the Government’s credentials which show that they are interested in fighting fraud? The Government themselves have seriously facilitated ID fraud on a massive scale. Let me give some examples. For the payment of just £12, anyone from anywhere in the world can form a company in the UK. They can use imaginary names and fictitious addresses—absolutely no authentication check of any kind is made at Companies House. A few days ago, I drew the Government’s attention, through Written Questions, to the names of directors registered at Companies House. These included “Adolf Tooth Fairy Hitler”, “Lord Truman Hell Christ”, “Judas Super-Radio Iscariot”, “Victor Les-appy Hugo” and a “Joseph Smith Jr” who gave his occupation as “Guardian Angel of the Ring of Mormon”, among others. All these were accepted, and these people got certificates of incorporation with which they could open a bank account and connect with the world’s financial systems. In the past 12 years, there has not been a single legislative reform to curb this.

The Government claim that they are interested in fighting fraud. First, they cannot provide evidence of voter fraud. Secondly, their own records show that they have no intention whatever to do so. They are simply seeking electoral advantage by claiming that they are fighting fraud. There is no other reason.

The Electoral Commission tells us that the imposition of photo ID will prevent many people participating in their God-given democratic right. The commission has already fined the Conservative Party for failing accurately to report donations. The revenge has been swift. The Bill neuters the powers of the Electoral Commission and hands them to the Government, who will inevitably use them against campaigners, while those on their side receive less scrutiny.

Scotland uses proportional representation. It would be helpful to know if the Minister is going to force the Scottish Government to abandon that and use the first past the post system. This is what the Government are proposing, for England at least. The UK and Belarus are now the only countries in Europe to use the first past the post system for general elections. It guarantees that a party with minority support will always end up with a huge majority in the House of Commons. This is undemocratic and unacceptable, and must be opposed by all right-minded people.

The ability of trade unions and civil society organisations to engage and campaign is vital to the renewal of democracy and to enabling the voices of people who are marginalised and silenced to be heard. This Bill silences them. It does not advance people’s rights in any way whatever.

People know that the political system is corrupt. It will remain so as long as political parties and individual legislators are funded by private money. Over the years, the Conservative Party has gleefully collected money from Russian oligarchs, smugglers, tax dodgers and other corrupt people. One in three billionaires in the UK donates money to the Conservative Party. But these people do not donate money, they invest—and they expect a return on that investment in the form of compliant laws, toothless regulators, subservient legislators and Governments who keep threatening laws off the political agenda.

The Minister referred earlier to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 and said that it works pretty well. No, it does not, and I can give him plenty of evidence. I will refer to just one example, which relates to Lord Ashcroft’s donations to the Conservative Party. Some years ago, he donated £5 million while he was a non-dom—in other words, he was not necessarily paying full taxes in the UK. The political contribution was made by a company called Bearwood Corporate Services. It was registered in the UK but had a director and secretary with addresses in the British Virgin Islands. From where exactly was the company controlled? You can guess. This company never had sufficient profits to fund those political donations. Where exactly did the money come from? It came from a company called Stargate Holdings Ltd, registered in Belize and controlled by Lord Ashcroft. To disguise the origins of that money, it was passed through three UK companies—Astraporta (UK) Ltd, Bearwood Holdings and Bearwood Corporate Services. Each was carefully designed to qualify as a small company under the Companies Act, so that it did not have to disclose its political donations. Astraporta and Bearwood Holdings did not trade with any third party and therefore had no profits out of which they could make the donation. It is clear that the law is being subverted and not complied with.

Finally, freeing political parties from corporate money is a necessary precondition for curbing political contributions in this country. I look forward to working with others who seek to achieve this end.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Sikka Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, on his excellent speech and welcome him to the House. I look forward to his insights on many worldly matters.

I am not a constitutional expert or a lawyer; nor am I a seasoned parliamentarian, as many others on the speakers’ list are. In many ways, I am an outsider and I offer an outsider’s perspective on the Bill. I believe that many of the concerns I will express may be shared by many lay people outside.

There is a broad public perception that Governments pass laws for their own convenience. The Bill ferments those concerns and reinforces them in many people’s minds. It does not enhance the power of the elected Chamber or the people. Possibly, it is all about enabling the Government to make a dash for an election before the glow of the coronavirus vaccine wears off and the consequences of their disastrous management of the economy and Brexit catch up with them.

The Minister referred to a desire to return to some glorious past. Perhaps that past was never really that glorious at all; if we look at the history, we see Governments cutting loose and seeking electoral advantage regardless of whether it was good for the country or not. We all know that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was part of the coalition Government’s strategy to remain in office; there was nothing else to it really. The Minister kindly referred to the Labour Party manifesto, so I remind him of the Conservative Party’s 2015 manifesto, which referred to the FTPA as

“an unprecedented transfer of Executive power.”

Presumably now we have an executive grab for power, because all other centres of power are being weakened.

The key factor in the FTPA was that the House of Commons determined the timing of the Dissolution of Parliament. The Bill takes that away and gives the Prime Minister unconstrained power over when to call an election. If a Prime Minister can unlawfully prorogue Parliament, he can also abuse the Dissolution powers. Are there any safeguards in the Bill? It is hard to see any, especially when the courts are excluded and people cannot go to them for any help.

Under the Bill, Parliament can be dissolved by a Prime Minister who is shoehorned into office—in other words, not the leader at the general election and therefore not subject to an earlier verdict of the people. Parliament can also be dissolved by a Prime Minister whose party does not have a working majority in the Commons.

What if the Prime Minister chooses not to dissolve Parliament and to go over five years? Are there sufficient safeguards? I could not really see anything in there to assure me. At least a vote in the House of Commons offered some safeguards against abusive Dissolutions, but all that is swept away. There is nothing to prevent Prime Ministers from behaving as they did in the past: pass a very favourable Budget, bribe the people, and call a general election. We are really talking about returning to the days of electoral bribery without any consideration of the consequences for the economy or the country as a whole, which in itself is an abuse of the Prime Minister’s office.

The Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill say that

“the Sovereign dissolved Parliament only when requested to do so by the Prime Minister, and in certain exceptional circumstances, the Sovereign could refuse to grant a dissolution.”

I hope that the Minister will tell the public at large what the “exceptional circumstances” are in which a Dissolution may be refused. When did the sovereign last override the Prime Minister’s advice? The Prime Minister basically seems to be in control. We have an adversarial political system, but which representative of the people will be called on to advise the sovereign on whether the circumstances are “exceptional” and therefore the Prime Minister’s request ought to be denied? Without suggesting democratic arrangements, the Bill leaves the sovereign open to a potential charge of political bias and subject to public opprobrium.

Clause 3, as many have referred to, is highly troublesome. It seeks to deny people access to the courts to rule on abusive Dissolutions. The inclusion of the clause suggests that the Government are concerned that people may challenge the Prime Minister’s decision, and that the Government are out to disempower the people. We live in a country where people have access to law and adjudication by the courts on most things, but on the vital issue of the Dissolution of Parliament and Prorogation the people will have no such right. Why are they being denied that right? The Minister referred earlier to elections being verdicts, but it has already been pointed out that the election comes some time after the event of Dissolution; the abuse has already taken place.

If the courts are precluded from adjudicating on the prerogative power of Dissolution, the only check on a rogue Prime Minister is the monarch. However, the Bill does not legislate on the monarch’s powers or offer any transparency or clarity on how those powers might be exercised. The only way to protect the sovereign from party politics and a charge of bias is really to empower the people to go to the courts and to empower the courts to intervene.

Overall, the Bill is part of a worrying trend of centralising power in the hands of the Executive and weakening the powers of Parliament, the courts and the people.

Money Laundering

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Sikka]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the levels of compliance with money laundering regulations by banks in the United Kingdom, and (2) the steps being taken by the Financial Conduct Authority to prevent money laundering.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)]

My Lords, the Financial Conduct Authority is the designated anti-money laundering supervisor for banks in the UK. The FCA uses data-led supervision programmes to assess its target firms. It issues guidance so that supervised entities understand the AML risks they are exposed to. The Treasury’s 2019-20 supervision report found that 86% of the 177 financial institutions subject to FCA active supervision were compliant. In instances of non-compliance, the FCA takes robust action to deter future breaches of the regulations.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the FCA has secured only one criminal conviction of a bank for money laundering, which was actually volunteered. Numerous leaks, such as the Pandora papers and the Paradise papers, show that UK banks are involved in illicit financial flows, yet the FCA is missing in action. What prevents the Minister commissioning an independent inquiry into the involvement of banks in illicit financial flows?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord tells only part of the story. A number of major fines have been imposed on financial institutions in the last few years: Deutsche Bank, £160 million in 2017; Standard Chartered, over £102 million in 2019; Commerce Bank, £37 million in 2020; and Goldman Sachs, £48 million in 2020. We have rigorous oversight and we continue to review it the whole time.

Budget Statement

Lord Sikka Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. The Chancellor’s Budget will not lead to an economic renaissance, reduce inequalities or improve household budgets.

The word “women” gets just one mention in the Chancellor’s Statement and there are no policies associated with women’s welfare, whether that is reducing the gender pay gap or the pension pay gap, or reducing women’s tax disadvantages. The disabled and pensioners get absolutely no mention in the Chancellor’s speech. The £10 Christmas bonus for pensioners was introduced in 1972 and is still the same. If linked to inflation, it would need to be around £140. The £100 winter fuel payment has not changed since 2011 and, if linked to energy prices, would need to be £153. The Government seem to really have it in for pensioners—they want to hurt them any way they can.

Household budgets are being squeezed by rising energy and food prices, but the Chancellor has not offered any relief by, for example, eliminating VAT on domestic fuel or perhaps offering or considering rent controls. The £4 billion tax cut for banks—from what I could add up—is part of a £54 billion tax giveaway, mainly in the form of tax relief to corporations that are already making billions of pounds in profits. The banks are a good example of that.

The Budget reduces the spending power of households and increases queues at food banks, and that will inevitably undermine the economic recovery. The suspension of the triple lock on the state pension will remove £30.5 billion from pensioners over the next five years, and some 4.4 million families will be worse off by around £4 billion a year because of the cut in universal credit.

Some £8 billion, perhaps more, is removed from household budgets by freezing personal allowances. Consequentially, 1.3 million people, generally the poorest, will be forced to pay income tax. The Johnson tax, which is the name I have given to the 1.25% levy—it does quite nicely on the internet—will remove £85 billion from people’s pockets in the next five years. Income tax begins at £12,570, but the Johnson tax is levied on an incomes from £9,500. People who do not earn enough to pay income tax have to pay national insurance and the Johnson tax. The IFS has pointed out that the Government’s relentless squeeze since 2010 will make the average worker almost £13,000 a year worse off by the middle of the 2020s compared with pre-2008 financial crash growth in wage rates.

The Government like tax perks for the rich. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. I hope the Minister will tell us why is it that no national insurance is levied on recipients of unearned income. If it were levied, it could go a long way towards addressing many of our social problems. I have asked that question of a number of Ministers, but nobody has answered. I hope that we get an answer today, and I am looking forward to it.

Even before the pandemic, the poorest 10% of households paid 47.6% of their income in direct and indirect taxes, compared with 33.5% by the richest 10%. The Budget has increased that burden, so I have another question for the Minister. Can he explain why the poorest continue to be targeted by the Government? What is to be achieved by increasing their tax burden even more?

The Chancellor said a lot about growth and productivity as the UK lags in international league tables. We have had more than a decade of low inflation, low interest rates, low wages and low corporate taxes, but that has not delivered the much-needed investment. UK investment in productive assets is around 16% of GDP, which is almost the lowest in Europe. When the opportunity arises, I hope that, on another day, I will be able to advance my thesis about why the UK remains in the doldrums.

Historically, the UK economy has been built by the public and private sectors. UK businesses have not shown a great deal of appetite for risky investment, which is why the state had to shoulder the burden and build airlines, telecommunications, biotechnology, nuclear and computer industries. It also had to rescue and reinvigorate railways, water, gas, electricity and many other industries. However, when you withdraw the state from that arena you do not really progress that much. What is the Government’s response? It is to reduce R&D spending by £2 billion to £20 billion. We are told that by 2024 they will spend about 1% of GDP on R&D. That is almost the lowest government spend in Europe, and it is again highly problematic. It will not deliver high productivity and growth.

The Government’s mishandling of Brexit is holding back the economy. The OBR said that

“supply bottlenecks have been exacerbated by changes in the migration and trading regimes following Brexit. Energy prices have soared, labour shortages have emerged in some occupations, and there have been blockages in some supply chains. These can be expected to hold back output growth”.

Yet the Chancellor offered no remedies for these structural problems.

The much-hyped policy of free ports did not get much endorsement from the OBR either. It said:

“There is also broader uncertainty around how much of the economic activity that takes place within a freeport will have been displaced from other UK regions and how much is genuinely additional.”


The major winners from the Budget are tax-dodging, champagne-sipping bankers on short-haul flights. For most people it is a continuation of austerity. That will inevitably increase social instability.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Lord Sikka Excerpts

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

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am an unpaid senior adviser to Tax Justice Network and will be referring to some taxation issues.

I cannot support this bad and cruel Bill. It does not address the Government’s failures on social care or the NHS. Local councils, which are responsible for social care, have seen their budgets plummet by up to 38% in real terms, and the Bill still does not provide the funding needed to reduce the NHS queues or improve social care. It does not create an integrated healthcare system in which social care is free at the point of delivery. It does not challenge profiteering by private equity, hedge funds and corporations from their involvement in social care and the NHS.

The 1.25 percentage point hike in national insurance, which I would like to popularise as “the Johnson tax”, as that is what we should be calling it, hits the poorest the hardest. Following the Bill, people’s wage packets will show deductions for three direct taxes: income tax, national insurance contributions and, from 2022-23, the newly invented health and social care levy, better known as the Johnson tax in many circles. This is from a Government who promised that there would be no increase in income tax or national insurance contributions.

Before the pandemic, the poorest 10% of UK households paid 47.6% of their income in direct and indirect taxes, compared to 33.5% by the richest 10% of the households. This regressive Bill does not provide any relief for the people at the bottom of the pile. People on the minimum wage will pay the additional national insurance. An employee on a £20,000 wage would pay £130.40 more each year, an effective increase of 10% in the amount of national insurance. This is in addition to the higher income tax which they will need to pay because the Government have frozen the personal allowances, while, at the same time, universal credit is cut by £1,040 for 5.5 million people. Did the Government ever wonder how people will survive? What will happen to social stability?

Many retirees are already struggling on the average state pension of around £8,100 a year and have sought to supplement this meagre pension through part-time jobs. This Bill will force retirees to pay more national insurance on their earned income. The national insurance hike will reduce people’s spending power and have a negative impact on the local economy and household budgets. Levelling up it is not; kicking down it certainly is.

The Government’s PR machine has made much of the 1.25% increase in dividend tax from April 2022. After the increase, dividends will be taxed at marginal rates of 8.75%, 33.75% and 39.35%, compared to marginal rates on earned income of 20%, 40% and 45%. So the tax privileges of the rich continue. At the same time, those receiving unearned income in the form of capital gains and dividends will pay zero national insurance, because it is not charged on unearned income.

Earlier in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, referred to the HMRC policy paper Health and Social Care Levy, which states:

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


Why are the Government hell-bent on hitting the poorest when they will also be facing higher inflation, including higher food and energy prices?

The Government claim that the national insurance hike will raise an additional £11.4 billion a year over the next three years. This could easily have been done without hitting the less well off, and in ways that reduced inequalities and unfairness. Earlier, the Minister said that there is no alternative other than borrowing. He is 100% wrong. For example, by taxing capital gains at the same rates as earned income, the Government could have raised an additional £17 billion a year, plus national insurance contributions of £8 billion. This reform alone would have generated more than double the amount generated by the Johnson tax. The capital gains tax regime benefits only 265,000 taxpayers, mostly resident in London and the south-east of England, so that reform would also have reduced regional inequalities. Again, the Government do not really wish to address that.

By taxing dividends in the same way as earned income, another £5 billion a year in revenue could have been raised, plus the increase in national insurance contributions possibly hitting between £600 million and £1 billion.

I ask the Minister to explain why billions of pounds in unearned income from the sale of second homes, speculation on stock markets and dealings in foreign exchange, commodities, artworks, land and other markets are not subject to national insurance. Does he agree that those tax perks for the rich are unfair and should be eliminated altogether?

Currently, employees generally pay 12% in national insurance on incomes up to £50,270. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the rate on incomes above that is only 2%. This means that high earners pay a lower proportion of their income in national insurance compared to the less well off. By extending the 12% rate to all earned income—just earned income, not including what could be collected from unearned income—an additional £14 billion a year could be raised. Again, the Government do not wish to do that.

I ask the Minister once again to explain why he is content with such a regressive system of national insurance, and why the Government have chosen to hit the less well off rather than inconvenience the rich.

Let us look at the tax relief on pension contributions. Around £41 billion a year is given; most of it goes to people on 40% or 45% marginal rates. Some 1.5 million people get zero tax relief on their pension contributions because their income is less than the personal allowance. Simply ensuring that everybody gets just 20% credit—equivalent to the basic rate of income tax—would leave the Government £10 billion spare.

I have referred to only four ways of raising tax revenues to fund social welfare without adding anything to the basic rate of income tax, the 40% rate of income tax or national insurance contributions for the masses. There are dozens of other ways and if I had more time I would be delighted to go through them. Hurting the less well off is a deliberate choice by the Government, because they have numerous other options available. I cannot really support the Bill as it is very cruel and bad.