National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Grand Committee

Amendment 5 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

We now move on to the next group. I call Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, before we start on that amendment, it is 7.28 pm and the Committee is due to finish at 7.45 pm. It always used to be the custom that if we would cover only a very short part of a group, we would normally draw stumps at that stage. That is the way it has always been done in the past. Obviously, we do not absolutely have to finish every group, but we do not normally start a quite significant group with a large number of amendments when there are so few minutes left, so I would like clarification on what will happen in this Committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

In answer to the noble Baroness, I am in the hands of the usual channels.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Good God.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

They were once described as some of the most polluted waterways in Europe.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)]

I understand that we have the grace of an extra 10 minutes after 7.45 pm. My understanding was that we would like to carry on and that noble Lords would come back if we do not finish the group. However, the Minister says that he is fine to break now, so if that is the will of the Committee then I am happy to do so. We seemed to be making real progress; I apologise for breaking any convention, but I am happy to be reasonable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those comments. In the spirit of good will in the Committee, this would be an appropriate time for us to draw stumps.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

In the spirit of good will, the Committee is adjourned.

Committee adjourned at 7.30 pm.

Long-duration Energy Storage (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate. I join all speakers—or perhaps all—who have congratulated my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, on securing it and on chairing the committee with great skill and good humour. I also thank the staff for their tremendous help in producing today’s report. I am glad that the House has had an opportunity to debate it relatively soon after its publication. That may seem strange to some new Members—January 2025 is not particularly close to March 2024—but, considering our subtitle “get on with it”, I hope the new Government will react to this report and debate in that spirit. I say “new Government” because most of this inquiry was conducted under the old Government. Like all other Members, I look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Gustafsson, who will join that relatively rare and select group of Members who make their maiden speeches as Ministers and not as Back Benchers.

I have been reflecting on the coincidence that we are having our debate on the same day as the state funeral of President Jimmy Carter. You may think there is no connection but, looking back, one of his achievements was to set up the Department of Energy in the United States in reaction to the oil crisis of the 1970s when OPEC became a well-known word throughout the world. We had set up our own Department of Energy a little earlier; it was 50 years ago this year that the first of the North Sea oil came through.

So, 50 years later, we find the energy landscape transformed and the public are now well adapted to the fact that energy policy shapes their lives. They instinctively realise that the phrase “net zero” is a further transformation which will dominate lives, even if they are not familiar with some of the details of this change. Today’s report should be seen in that context, given that many of the details may not be easily grasped by the public.

As you would expect, we took a lot of very detailed evidence for the report from a wide range of experts. Even on some of the most important areas, such as the need for a strategic energy reserve, there were widely varying views on how large that reserve should be. We know that the Government’s targets are ambitious and the wish to be largely decarbonised by 2030 brings forward the date, so it is all the more important that a committee such as ours takes on an issue such as this and gives it the prominence it deserves. Let us face it, LDES as an acronym does not exactly trip off the tongue, but it represents an important and vital ingredient of our future energy policy. The net-zero policy to which we are committed will mean that we use electricity far more than we do now, and it will be derived from renewable sources. We will specifically use wind and solar, both of which we have a great capacity for.

The residents of a place called Odiham in Hampshire, as noble Lords will recall, last autumn went for an entire week without any recorded sunshine or wind. There is a special word to describe this—I think the chair has already beaten me to get it into Hansard—but we have got to deal with a world in which the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, otherwise we run the risk of power cuts. The chair alluded to how close we came relatively recently to what many in the world would call “load-shedding”, which is something a first-world country such as ours should not countenance.

In the short time available, I have a few questions for the Minister. First, what is the Government’s current assessment of the scale of the need for LDES and how will it fit into the new energy system? Secondly, what progress is being made in setting up the National Energy System Operator and what effect will future reforms to the planning system have on implementing decisions once ministerial approval is given?

Thirdly, what plans do the Government have for a strategic energy reserve? Will that reserve be gas or might it be an alternative such as hydrogen? Fourthly, if it will involve green hydrogen as a long-duration energy store, how will this fit into the Government’s wider hydrogen policy? What plans do they have for a domestic electrolyser industry, not to mention greater public consultation on its potential use?

Fifthly, what progress is being made towards a strategic spatial energy plan? Sixthly, what plans do the Government have for speeding up the ability of renewable energy sources to connect to the national grid? When we look back on this in years to come, it will be a scandal that it took so long. Seventhly, when the grid connection queue has finally been shortened, what steps do they plan to take to enable electricity to be transferred across the country—even across beautiful parts of this country—by the building of new pylon networks? Can this be achieved without timely reform of planning laws?

Eighthly, is there anything the Government can tell the House about plans to minimise the need for long-duration energy storage, including the use of interconnectors—always bearing in mind that, in today’s dangerous world, as undersea cables are severed, so could undersea connectors? Ninthly, what government support is being given to R&D into other LDES technologies, such as compressed air and battery chemistries? Tenthly, can the Government explain how LDES can and will fit into their longer-term net-zero objectives? Will gas-fired plants be used for LDES? If so, will they be fitted with CCUS?

In conclusion, when a major committee such as the Science and Technology Committee tells the Government that they should get on with it, I want the Minister to know that it is meant in the kindest, friendliest way—but it is meant.

International Women’s Day

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Friday 8th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems strange on International Women’s Day to begin a speech by saying “My Lords”, so I will say, colleagues, that I am very pleased to take part in this debate and to make a short contribution. Like every other Member, I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, well in her maiden speech. That may not help her, but we all wish her well. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and to her daughter and granddaughter, that I remember standing up here and speaking a mere few hours after I became a grandparent for the first time, and I found myself instantly realising that I had a personal stake in the 22nd century.

The Motion we are debating today refers to

“steps taken to promote the economic inclusion of women”,

and I want to talk today about women and science. Why? Because studying science opens the way to an enormously wide range of opportunities in life, both personally and professionally, and science is as relevant and important a gateway to economic inclusion as any other. To get straight to the point, I want to talk about the scientific inclusion of women. I should say, as in the register of interests, that I am president of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, which is Parliament’s oldest all-party group.

I thank the many scientific organisations that contacted me while I was preparing for this debate to provide material and points that they would like made on their behalf. Frankly, I have been inundated and I am grateful to them all. For the sake of their right to be recorded in Hansard, I thank the Royal Society, the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, the Royal Society of Biology, the Institute of Physics, the Royal Astronomical Society, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the Anatomical Society, the Nutrition Society, the University of Reading, the Campaign for Science and Engineering and the Library for its briefing on today’s debate.

The House should know that all these societies are strong advocates for the inclusion of women, as well as for equality and diversity, in science. They have all provided far more statistics than I could use, but all are engaged in a variety of initiatives designed to promote women. The Royal Society highlighted that just over a quarter of the STEM workforce are women, yet women as a whole comprise 52% of the workforce, so there is still a long way to go.

On the other hand, to be a bit more optimistic, there are signs of some change for the better. The Physiological Society brought to my attention that three of the most eminent scientists in its field are women, one of whom is a Member of this House. The Nutrition Society provided me with a long list of success stories featuring women who have won major awards. The Institute of Mathematics and its Applications pointed out that female mathematicians now occupy some of the most important and distinguished places in public life: the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, the director of GCHQ, the chair of the Council for the Mathematical Sciences, the president of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications and the heads of the Isaac Newton Institute and the Heilbronn Institute for Mathematical Research. I emphasise that these are the first women ever to hold these roles.

Unsurprisingly, there are still areas where progress needs to be made. The well-documented leaky pipeline is as leaky as it was when we held this debate last year. In the chemical sciences and physics, the retention and development of women into senior roles remains poor; the higher up the career ladder, the smaller the proportion of women. We must do more to encourage women taking career breaks to keep in touch with their science and make it easier for them to return as soon as they want to—and not to positions clearly less senior than those they occupied before taking a maternity break, for example. The Royal Society of Biology highlighted “insufficient support” for those with caring responsibilities. The Royal Society, the Anatomical Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry agree—frankly, everybody agrees. If I have found one major theme repeated in the many briefings I have received, it is the question of how effectively to enhance support for women in mid-career. This also involves the problem of short-term contracts and funding, because those with caring responsibilities are predominantly women.

This Monday we held the annual STEM for Britain event, which brings early-career scientists to the House to meet their constituency Members of Parliament and exhibit their work. It is highly competitive, and the most brilliant young people came. As I handed out the prizes, I could not help but think to myself that the women getting the prizes would face hurdles in their careers that the men would not. I hope the Minister will acknowledge the crucial importance of this issue.

It is also well known that female scientists frequently fail to get proper credit for their research. Nature found that 13% fewer women were likely to be named as authors on a scientific paper to which they had contributed. When Watson and Crick won the Nobel prize, Rosalind Franklin, whose work had made it all possible, was not even mentioned. The men got the Nobel prize, yet if DNA is not a symbol of the 21st century, I do not know what is.

Role models are also terribly important. The Institute of Physics referred to “outdated stereotypes”. Thank heavens we have some women who can really inspire. Anyone who has seen Maggie Aderin-Pocock, who presents “The Sky at Night”, will know how inspirational she is. As the Oscars are coming up on Sunday, I note that a Barbie doll, whose dress features the sky and who has a telescope, is named after her.

My time is up, so I conclude by saying this. It is really straightforward: scientific inclusion is a vital ingredient of economic inclusion, and our country and economy cannot afford to waste the talents of half our population. Women and girls need science, science needs access to the fullest range of talent, and economic inclusion demands no less.

Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Prescription of Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Regulations 2023

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for sharing their thoughts in this short debate.

As ever, the noble Lord, Lord Jones, rightly held the Executive to account. I always appreciate his questions. He asked how many small businesses there are. There are hundreds of thousands of them. I can tell the noble Lord that 90% of properties come under the small business multiplier, so only 10% pay at the standard rate; of course, that covers hundreds of thousands of properties, some of which may be used by a single business. We must recognise that the small business multiplier is really important because it covers most properties. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, pointed out, it was frozen at the Autumn Statement because we recognise and share his concerns about the impact of business rates on our high streets, which we want to keep as vibrant as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is right that this is a tax cut. Sadly, it is quite limited, but, nevertheless, we will take tax cuts wherever we can find them. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, it amounts to around £5 million and goes to charities. Charities get other reliefs as well, which is why the impact is probably smaller than one might otherwise think.

Monitoring and reviewing business rates is a really important area. The Valuation Office Agency is responsible for valuing non-domestic property for business rates purposes. As I mentioned, we have decided to reduce the revaluation period from five years to three years to make it a bit more flexible and agile. The agency is required by law to compile and maintain accurate rating lists for non-domestic properties in England; it must do this impartially and independently of central government. It follows international valuation standards and the RICS mandatory guidance on the appropriate method of valuation. Of course, the VOA remains happy to talk to ratepayers to ensure that it gets the number for the rateable value right.

It is also important to recognise that the VOA is undergoing a period of transformation. There are some opportunities to digitise business rates. There is also a positive opportunity to link business rates to the HMRC system, to make it much easier and so that there is better targeting and understanding of how the business rates system works with the tax data from businesses themselves. This reform programme is called the digitalisation of business rates, and it will be a major step forward in modernising the entire system.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, went on to ask what small businesses think of this and whether we have heard from them. I am pleased to be able to tell him that there was the 2023 business rates review consultation and the technical consultation. We heard from the Federation of Small Businesses and many other representative groups in those consultations; they provided us with valuable feedback on how we can make the business rates system more productive.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, mentioned the issue of some in local government feeling the pinch at the moment. The provisional local government finance settlement for 2024-25 has made an additional increase of 6.5% in councils’ core spending power. A consultation with the sector closed on 15 January and we are considering the responses. The final settlement will be confirmed in early February. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities always stands ready to speak to any council that has concerns about its ability to manage its finances or faces pressures that it has not planned for. We are aware that a small number of local authorities have recently suffered financial distress because of issues specific to them. As I say, we are keen to work with local authorities to ensure that they continue to deliver services for the public.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said that business rates are too high, although he gave credit to the Government, noting that we held the small business multiplier for 2024-25 in the Autumn Statement. That is a positive thing. There is an enormous number of reliefs available for different types of businesses— I was briefed on this—and it is worth making sure that businesses are aware of them. Noble Lords will be aware of the reliefs that we have been able to extend for hospitality, to ensure that our high streets remain vibrant places to go to and socialise. Indeed, there are plenty of others, such as the improvement relief. I think it is possibly quite complicated, but necessarily so, because it targets money to where we need it most.

The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, asked about unoccupied properties. Local authorities are responsible for administering business rates at a local level, and they would determine the occupation of the property. However, if there is any more information or guidance around that that I can provide him with, I will certainly write to him with an update on business rate evasion and avoidance.

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)]

It may be for the convenience of the Grand Committee that we adjourn now, as there is about to be a vote in the Chamber, and reconvene 10 minutes from the moment the Division Bells begin.

IMF Economic Outlook

Viscount Stansgate Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My noble friend is right about the importance of investment, which is why the Government are maintaining record levels of capital investment: £600 billion over the next five years. We have permanently set the annual investment allowance at its highest-ever level of £1 million. My noble friend is also right about the importance of green investment and driving green growth in our economy. We have one of the strongest legislative frameworks for tackling climate change and nature loss, and we will continue to build on that. Our record is clear: we are one of the most significant decarbonising economies in the G20, and we have achieved that at the same time as growing.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

The Minister referred a moment ago to Brexit, and today happens to be the third anniversary of our departure. Can she remind the House of the Government’s attitude to the OBR forecast that Brexit has cost the UK about 4% of its GDP per year?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I believe that that is not a forecast but a modelling assumption. We will look at the record of the UK economy since leaving the EU, and we continue to grow. Since the Brexit referendum, we have grown at a similar rate to Germany, and, last year, we had one of the highest growth rates in Europe. So we look at the record and the outturn, not just the predictions.