Palestine Statehood (Recognition) Bill [HL]

Lord Swire Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to have been given the privilege of being able to say a few words during the gap, and I will try not to abuse that indulgence. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for instigating this debate, and I support her in everything that she said. I believe that the recognition of Palestine should be imminent. We should have done it already. It should not be the prize at the end of a process; that approach has not worked, nor will it. However, I do not understand why on the one hand we say that Palestinian statehood is conditional when at the same time we are turning a blind eye to the illegal expansion of Israel, building out the possibility of a two-state solution.

At the risk of repeating everything we have heard today, let me say that more than 146 members of the United Nations have already recognised Palestine. I pay tribute to the leadership that has been shown by our Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, particularly in relation to what is going on in Ukraine. We would now like to see some of that leadership in relation to what is going on in Israel.

Regardless of what has been said about the Balfour Declaration, that declaration was a British initiative, and we have an enduring responsibility to ensure that all parts of it are upheld. I listened closely to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the conditions needed under international law to create a state. I have to say that he is a brilliant lawyer, but his approach was somewhat selective. For instance, some of the things that he spoke about are not achievable because of what is going on in the West Bank and in Gaza itself. He also failed to mention anything about the right of return for those descendants of Palestinians around the world—there are almost 5 million of them—who have had to leave what is now Israel.

I have a question for the Minister. The encylopedia definition of ethnic cleansing states that it is

“the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area … it also includes indirect methods aimed at forced migration by coercing the victim group to flee and”—

critically—“preventing its return”. I am mindful of the use of language in dealing with this issue, having been a former chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council, of which my noble friend Lord Soames is the president, but, in the Government’s opinion, would the forcible removal of the population of Gaza constitute a crime against humanity?

I want a strong Israel—we need a stronger Israel now more than at almost any time—but it has to win international support, and it is losing that support. If it is involved in the forcible eviction of the population of Gaza, we have not seen the likes of what will ensue, nor do we wish to.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Lord Swire Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Grand Committee

I hope that the Minister will see this proposal as a constructive suggestion that supports the Government’s long-term fiscal plan and accepts that national insurance will rise, but aims to minimise the damage caused. It is in that spirit that I commend these amendments to the Committee.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I want to speak briefly in support of this series of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and others. It is very important to listen to what somebody such as my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who is involved in the retail industry, has just said.

I know, given my experience of dealing with the Treasury as a Minister, that it takes an absolutist position on most things. The Treasury does not like to cede any point at all; it regards that as some sort of weakness. I suspect that the Minister has been told that this is what the Treasury has decided and that he is not to resile from any of the arguments or rescind any of the inherent parts of the Bill. However, this proposal would not really change anything.

We on this side of the House are not arguing against these increases. However, the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in Davos about reinvigorating the economy and instilling confidence in it, at the same time as the Government are going to kick in the solar plexus a lot of those entering the market—people leaving university, for instance, and trying to get into the job market for the first time. They have an astonishing combination of challenges ahead of them, not least because of student loan repayments and the cost of housing.

If these changes are instigated so quickly now, where are the companies’ savings going to come from? They can come only from freezing employment and shedding jobs, from passing on the costs to the consumer and from totally stopping their R&D budgets. All these things are not, I would argue, in the long-term interests of the British economy.

By all means let these changes come, but let the market be prepared—the market being the employers, who can look at these changes and spend more time trying to accommodate them. Otherwise the Government are going to achieve what they think they are going to achieve on the one hand with an increase in income from these increases, but at the same time there must be a decrease because there will be fewer people in employment and more people needing some kind of financial support, which will have the precise inverse effect of what we are told the Government are seeking to achieve.

I hope that the Minister will realise that we are not trying to attack the principle of what the Government are trying to do. We recognise the fact that the Government need to raise revenue from somewhere, but we are asking the Government to think more holistically about the knock-on effects on those very people who they maintain they are also trying to help.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support these amendments. It occurs to me—I would be interested to know whether it is true—that this must be the first series of amendments where the three signatories have all been directors of FTSE 100 companies. That must tell us something. I think it is the first time, but I will be happy to be proven wrong.

It is a great pleasure to speak after one of my role models—she does not know it, but it is true—my noble friend Lady Noakes, as well as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and, particularly, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Apsley Guise, who is widely regarded as one of the leading businessmen of his generation. I say that because he is from a younger generation than me, perhaps. He has an outstanding business career that has created thousands of jobs and tremendous value for shareholders. Thankfully, he still has time to contribute to your Lordships’ House and other communal activities, so when he speaks I think we should listen carefully. He is right to say that there is some truth that more expensive labour leads to greater productivity, mainly because productivity is measured as output per hour so, by definition, productivity improves, but it is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself. He mentioned the food sector. Certainly, in the hospitality sector I know of companies that are just closing down. This increase has led them to say that they are going to give it up, which cannot be what the Government want.

On 6 January, Next reported anaemic growth as the result of the tax measures. On the very same day, S&P Global’s Purchasing Managers’ Index came out and said that nearly 25% of British businesses reduced their workforce following the Budget specifically. The index indicated that the private sector has experienced its weakest growth in 14 months, with firms shedding jobs at the fastest pace in more than 15 years, other than during the pandemic. HMRC released its payroll data on 21 January. Employees in the UK declined by 47,000 to 30.3 million in December alone, the biggest drop since November 2020, which again was pandemic-related. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson mentioned, Sainsbury’s came out on 23 January with cuts to head office of 3,000 and an ambition to reduce senior management roles by 20%. Recently, on 27 January, the Confederation of British Industry reported that private sector firms expect a significant decline in activity over the next three months with a weighted balance of 22% negative. It said that this pessimism is widespread across sectors including services, distribution and manufacturing. The downturn was mainly due to the Budget.

With the assistance of someone who is much smarter than me on spreadsheets, I have tried to calculate the effect of all this. Although I am an economist by background, this is not a specialist area for me, so I would be extremely grateful if the Minister would ask the Treasury to comment on the numbers that I am going to give him. I think that they are right, but I would be more than happy to be challenged if they are not.

My premise is that the average UK earnings per full-time employee is £33,280. The number of full-time equivalents in the UK is bang on 30 million. If you increase the existing employers’ NI rate of 13.8% to 15% and reduce the existing NI threshold of £9,100 to £5,000, you get an increase in total NI take from £100 billion to £127.2 billion, giving you a total employers’ NI increase of £27.2 billion—or, to be precise, £27.154 billion—which is the sum that the Chancellor seeks. Fair enough. But, given all that we have heard today, what happens if employment reduces? You can put in any variable you like. I have taken what I regard to be a most reasonable suggestion of 3%. Let us say that, as a result of this, there is a 3% reduction in employment. Personally, I think it would be much more, but let us say 3%. At that point, the number of UK full-time equivalents becomes 29.1 million. The employers’ NI take goes to £123 billion, which is a reduction of £3.8 billion. But, at the same time, there is universal credit for those redundant full-time equivalents of £20,000 a head, which costs the Treasury £18 billion. If you add the loss of that universal credit to the reduction in NI take that I have just mentioned, you get a net loss of—guess what—bang on £27.05 billion. So, the 3% reduction in employment that I reckon will happen leads to absolutely no gain to the Treasury whatever.

I present those figures because I would like to be challenged on them and proven wrong, but I do not think that I am. Along with the signatories to the amendment, I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to reflect carefully, in the spirit of co-operation, as to whether it is wise to bring this measure in so harshly, so quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest in much the same way. If all goes to plan, I will speak on Thursday in respect of social care homes, particularly adult social care homes, where many of the same issues arise. I cannot imagine the response if a Conservative Government had decided to put national insurance rises on such institutions; can noble Lords begin to see the headlines that would be against us?

This House is a revising Chamber; it allows the Government the opportunity to pause, rethink and consider, and if ever there was a case to do so, this is it. Before the Government have the acute embarrassment of urging Peers to go through the Division Lobby to penalise care homes and hospices in such a way, I very much hope that they will take advantage of the gap between Committee and Report to reflect on the arguments.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I too support my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest and thank her for her very moving and informed speech. It triggered a memory for me. I was approached by the Children’s Hospice South West for a fundraiser —my goodness, I think it was 15 years ago—and managed to raise a record amount by putting on an event for it. I saw for myself the astonishing job that hospices do. They provide a level of care and places that many of these people—children, in particular—could not find elsewhere, so the question for the Minister is this: if some of them are to shed staff and therefore be less able to take these very needy children and their relations, where will the Government step in? How will they take up the slack and what, ultimately, will be the cost to the Government?

I have some sympathy with the Minister. He has come here today to hold the Treasury line, of course, but we are wasting our time if, to each and every group of amendments we table, the stock reply is, “The Government need to raise the money. They don’t recognise the figures that the Opposition are presenting”, and we move on to another set of amendments. That does not suggest to me much dialogue or debate. But I congratulate the Minister on one thing: so far in our deliberations this afternoon he has not alluded once to the fictitious £22 billion black hole.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, listening to noble Lords present the case for Amendment 29, I agreed with every single word that was said. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, said that an exemption was required. Amendment 29 does not ask for that exemption; it asks for an assessment to be done, and therefore it does not mean that an exemption would come, which is why, on day one in Committee, we on these Benches tabled an amendment to say that an exemption for hospices should apply. If we bring that back on Report, I hope that the noble Baroness will support us as we hold our ground.

I want to talk briefly to the other amendment in this group: Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, regarding the increase in the employer allowance to £20,000 for hospices. Just as a matter of fact, the average number of staff per hospice is 81 full-time equivalent employees, and the average salary is £23,626. Therefore, the average total salary bill for a hospice is £1.863 million, so a £20,000 employment allowance will be absolutely useless because hospitals will still be clobbered by the national insurance contribution increase. That is why we put them down for an exemption, and we hold our ground on that.

Economic Growth

Lord Swire Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, on that note, I do not want to do anything this afternoon to dent the happiness index. I start by referring to my entry in the register of interests and by joining in the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for instigating this debate and for what I thought was an exceptional speech with a lot of meat in it.

I recently read an article by that eminent Oxford political scientist, Professor Ben Ansell, who asked what this Government’s theory of growth was and came up with the conclusion, rather disappointingly, that there was no consistent theory or ideology. I do not know whether that is true, but I do know that there are a lot of mixed messages coming out of the Government at the moment.

I have been following closely the utterances of the Chancellor in Davos. She is saying some very interesting and, to my way of thinking, very positive things. One thing she said is that growth is to triumph over all else. However, at the same time as she is saying that, other members of her Government, including Ed Miliband, are still rushing to net zero. At the same time, we are told, we are looking at the prospect of an energy deficit, and there can surely be no greater impediment to growth than rationing power, which is something we might be looking at. These inherent contradictions unfortunately permeate through all parts of government thinking on growth. We are closing down the North Sea at the same time that President Trump’s mantra is to drill, drill, drill. Someone is right, and I do not think it is us.

This afternoon I want to talk about a couple of things. One is education. I simply do not understand where the Government are coming from in tinkering with our academies. I no longer know whether the Prime Minister thinks that academies are good or bad: there seems to be no consistency. The Government have driven 20,000 fee-paying students into the state school sector—which is struggling to accommodate them, and I have no doubt that there will be more to follow—and are changing the national curriculum. I ask the Minister: are they doing all these things out of a narrow ideology, or do they genuinely think it is going to better equip our young workforce for the workforce challenges ahead, particularly in the competitive world of things such as AI and quantum computing?

We know that unemployment is up and that NICs are going to attack all, not least the lowest paid—we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about hospitality, which is going to be adversely hit—and those on the bottom rung of the employment ladder.

We know that we have a problem with productivity. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai; we are now signing off many more people for all kinds of mental health reasons. I read a very good article by the noble Lord, Lord Rose of Monewden, who said that working from home is a disaster and that in his opinion the country has gone back 20 years in the past four. The Government can show a real commitment to productivity and growth by insisting that civil servants return to their desks. In the United States, President Trump is about to sack great rafts of employees who refuse to do that.

The Government are now talking about tinkering with the visa regime to fill knowledge gaps in AI and the life sciences. Is that a tacit admission that we are unable to provide people of that quality in our own country at a time when we have a record population of 67 million, up from 50 million in 1950?

I want to think about our image abroad. What are we trying to sell to the international investment community? Are we to be a low-regulated, highly taxed digital economy or something different? We should look again at how we attract inward investment. I welcome the fact that we will look again at the non-dom policy. Millions of pounds have left this country; these people are highly mobile and, once they go, it is astonishingly difficult to attract them back.

Those are all the negatives. The positive is that the UK is still the second most popular place to invest. We have huge convening power, unequalled soft power and links through all the great international bodies, from NATO to AUKUS and the Security Council. And yes, we have the Commonwealth, which I go on about regularly—56 willing countries that would trade with us much more if only we were prepared to show that we took them seriously and wanted to trade with them.

Renewable Energy: Costs

Lord Swire Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, I crave the House’s indulgence for largely lifting the comments I will make from a contribution to a debate we had in February this year. I was going to make a few rather politically pris comments until I discovered that, in February, the Minister who answered was a Conservative Minister. Rereading his answers, I found them as unsatisfactory as some of the things I have heard since.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Frost on what is a timely debate. I will limit my remarks to a very narrow part of it: the costs of transmitting the renewable energy that we are debating. There is absolutely no consensus on these costs at all.

I do not share the sentiment—although I understand it—expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, about the “majesty” of a whole new generation of pylons marching across our countryside. In fact, that is when the public will begin to lose their enthusiasm for renewable energy. There are other ways of doing it, but we first need to address some fundamental questions. Why are we locating substations for bringing offshore renewable energy onshore, when countries such as Holland and Belgium are planning vast offshore substations? They are absolutely huge. Why is it current UK policy that, instead of pooling the power from the 18 or so wind farms around the country and having limited interconnectors, the National Grid is offering an individual connection to each offshore wind farm? It is completely unthought through and unnecessary.

On the subject of burying power lines versus not burying them, the technology is ever-changing, and some of the figures that have been bandied about by National Grid and others are simply unrecognisable. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is right: we do not build things very well any more. If you look back to the 1850s, when we carried telegraph traffic across the transatlantic cable, we were one of the first to do that, and five years later, Sebastian Ziani de Ferranti designed the first high-voltage underground mains cable, which he used to connect the Grosvenor Gallery to Deptford substation, and which carried 10,000 volts. These were all highly innovative and revolutionary acts of engineering. But we can do the same now; we need to have a debate about the various costs of ploughing in and trenching power lines. The new technologies are there, and we know that the environmental benefits of burying power lines in terms of reducing outages, the effects on the flora and fauna and bird life, and the visual impact as well on our landscapes are there and need to be factored into any cost-based analysis.

There was some question about the cost of burying power lines, particularly in East Anglia, and that is a good example. The National Energy System Operator, which formed part of the former National Grid, maintains, on the power lines which it is proposing to build overland in East Anglia, that if that timeframe was to slip to 2034, an underground cable system would come in £600 million cheaper than using pylons. So, we need an honest debate about the various costs, but I urge anybody who is keen on increasing the amount of renewables transmitted to this country to think very carefully about how we do that if we are to carry the public with us.