Business Rates Avoidance Schemes
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I accept what the noble Baroness is saying. The Government are committed to consulting on a general anti-avoidance rule, covering all local authorities. There is something similar in Scotland and Wales, and the Government are seriously looking at it. I will leave the question of when it will happen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, although it is important for the Government to take action against those who break the rules and the law, high streets in this country are virtually crippled as a result of taxation, including the business rates that are applied to them. What will the Government do to lift these burdens and encourage small businesses to continue to trade on our high streets?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I kindly say to the noble Lord that, at the last Budget, the Valuation Office announced updated property values from the 2026 revaluation. In recognition of the impact of the revaluation on bills, the Government have introduced a support package worth £4.3 billion to protect against ratepayers seeing large overnight increases. As a result, over half of ratepayers will see no bill increases in 2026-27, including 23% whose bills will go down. This also means that most properties are seeing increases capped at 15% or less in 2026-27, or at £800 for the smallest.
King’s Speech
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, it will probably come as no great surprise to the House that I have a slightly different view about Europe from my noble friend Lord Jackson, who spoke a little while ago. As the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Europe, I can think of few questions more central to the prospects for economic growth in this country than the state of our relationship with the European Union and how we choose to take it forward. I am therefore pleased that the King’s Speech includes legislation to ease the passage of future negotiations with European partners. The European partnership Bill deserves some support, but it will require very careful scrutiny to ensure that it delivers positive outcomes without engendering fresh divisions on this clearly still sensitive area.
The European Union remains, by a considerable distance, our largest trading partner. In 2024, exports of goods and services to the EU were worth some £358 billion. However, analysis suggests that, as a result of our leaving the union, by 2025 our GDP per head was between 6% and 8% lower than it otherwise would have been, with business investment lower by something in the order of 12% to 18%. In financial services alone, more than 440 firms have moved part of their operations from the United Kingdom to the European Union, taking with them assets of roughly £900 billion. That is shocking, as these are jobs and economic opportunities that we simply cannot afford to lose at a moment when national growth has recently been so anaemic.
In that context, I very much welcome the announcement on Monday that the Government intend to place Britain once more at the heart of Europe, and I assume that the proposed legislation will be designed to help that. But the admittedly positive rhetoric of this Government can be no substitute for tangible progress on so many of the opportunities that arose from last year’s UK-EU summit, following the welcome reset in those relations achieved by Rishi Sunak with the Windsor Framework. We are still waiting to see tangible results on a youth experience scheme, on a full sanitary and phytosanitary agreement for our farmers and food producers, on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and on a proper resolution to the challenges currently facing our touring artists and musicians. There are references to these matters in the proposed legislation, but time moves on and the Government must move further and faster if British businesses are to feel any meaningful relief from the costs and bureaucracy with which they have been saddled post Brexit.
This will of course require compromise on both sides. We must be honest with ourselves and with the public about the trade-offs required and what closer co-operation might entail in practice. The agreements being negotiated on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, on the linking of our emissions trading schemes, and on participation in the EU’s internal electricity market will all, by common agreement of both sides and as accepted by the Government in their proposals, require a measure of dynamic alignment with relevant EU rules. That is in principle a sensible course, provided it is undertaken with due regard to this country’s regulatory autonomy and the proper authority of our Parliament.
Of course, if we wish to benefit from a new partnership with our European neighbours and the considerable economic advantages attached to this, we also have to be prepared to make a fair contribution to the relevant EU budgets, as the Norwegians and the Swiss have done for many decades. We should be honest and up front with the electorate on that. But, equally, the Commission and the member states must also demonstrate a positive and pragmatic approach, and show willing to offer exceptions to dynamic alignment rules where it is sensible to do so. Importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, alluded to, they must make changes at their end to effect the deregulation and reform that the EU itself patently requires at this time.
There remains, however, the question of how this should all be done. Any proposals to align ourselves with the European Union by way of Henry VIII powers, without this House having a full and ongoing say, are in my view simply wrong in principle. As the Supreme Court set out in the Miller litigation, leaving the European Union required the consent of Parliament. It is therefore only right that what are in my view welcome attempts to move closer to Europe should also be subjected to the fullest parliamentary scrutiny, with proper respect for our sovereignty. To be fair, the new proposals suggest parliamentary scrutiny at all stages, but the Minister must, even at this early stage, give clear assurances that this will include all proposals and both primary and secondary legislation.
However, even as we pursue these important opportunities, there are other and more immediate routes by which we can co-operate with our European partners for significant economic gain. We should now explore them without waiting for more legislation. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is one such route. The UK is already part of this expanding platform, representing some 15% of global GDP, and the prospect of the European Union itself acceding to that agreement could give considerable opportunities for us all. As Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, rightly observed at the World Economic Forum earlier this year, it is incumbent upon the middle powers to act together, and there could be no more obvious expression of that principle than for the EU and the CPTPP to draw closer. This would allow us to rebuild our relationship with our fellow European democracies while harnessing the dynamism of the Indo-Pacific, and it would signal a profound shift in the architecture of world trade towards the interests of the middle powers. The two blocs should be encouraged to streamline the unnecessarily cumbersome accession process, our own having taken some eight years, and to prioritise long-term prosperity.
We are now facing serious geopolitical challenges and, as recent events have made clear, the era in which we could rely completely on our closest partner across the Atlantic for support has patently been put in doubt. Our security and economic prosperity now lie more directly with Europe. It falls to this Government to make sure that the forthcoming UK-EU summit is more than simply another exercise in warm words and offers of legislation at some point in the future. We must deliver the substantive reset that British businesses, British workers and the UK’s national interests urgently require, and we must deliver it quickly.
Europe: Youth Mobility
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this matter before us today. My contribution will be to strongly support a youth mobility scheme between the United Kingdom and European countries. But, before putting forward my arguments for this, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, on his maiden speech—and thank him, actually, for mentioning me.
The noble Lord and I go back quite a long way, if I might use that phrase. We first encountered each other, I think, when I was the UK Immigration Minister—never an easy job at the best of times, as we all know—and the noble Lord was the head of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. We had some exchanges at that time and I am pleased to say that, despite our slightly different backgrounds and responsibilities, we had a positive relationship. Later, when we were both MEPs, the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, was, as he said, the chair of the LIBE Committee—the justice committee —of the European Parliament, with me as the lead Conservative. I can state categorically that, by working together, especially on security issues, we were able to demonstrate the importance of the UK in protecting not only our own citizens but all Europeans and the wider world. It was a most productive relationship. Sadly, of course, Brexit removed those activities, but I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Moraes, is now here with us.
In examining the Government’s stated wish to restore or reset our relationship with the EU, the matter we are debating today is of great importance, not only for our young people but for the economic, cultural and diplomatic ties that bind us to our closest neighbours.
Since the UK left the EU, young people on both sides of the channel have faced a stark reality: opportunities that were once taken for granted have disappeared. The ability to study, work and gain international experience in each other’s countries has been significantly diminished. This is not merely an inconvenience: it is a loss of potential, a restriction of opportunity and a barrier to future prosperity.
We have long argued that expanding youth mobility schemes to more countries—particularly those geographically and economically close to the UK—would be beneficial. Sectors with fluid labour markets, such as hospitality, have relied on the participation of young workers for years.
Of course, youth mobility schemes are not new, as other noble Lords have mentioned. The UK already has agreements with countries such as Australia, Canada and Japan, allowing young people to live and work in those nations for a defined period. These agreements are reciprocal, well regulated and mutually beneficial. There is absolutely no logical reason why a similar scheme cannot be agreed with Europe, especially with the EU itself. Of course, the specifics will need to be negotiated to ensure that we get a deal that is in our interests, but that is very much achievable.
The economic case is compelling. This is an initiative welcomed across business communities and across all sectors, and widely seen by labour organisations and the third sector as a serious omission from our current relationships. European interns have often been invaluable in helping British small and medium-sized companies expand into new European markets. The long-standing practice among UK lawyers—I speak as a lawyer myself— of spending time in an EU member state during training or after qualification has been crucial for professional development and career success. However, this pathway is no longer accessible to those lawyers employed by firms without EU offices, as they cannot take advantage of the intra-corporate transfer provisions contained within the TCA.
Similarly, for example, the horticulture sector has for many years sent students and young people to the Netherlands in the summer, while taking European students here—a system that has been fundamental to how they do business.
Polling evidence also shows very strong public support for a youth mobility scheme. In August 2024, research by More in Common found that 58% of people think that such a scheme is a good idea, compared with only 10% who oppose it. Breaking that down, 71% of those who voted Labour in the July general election supported the scheme, as well as a majority—56%—of Conservative voters. I should not mention it, but even among Reform UK voters, support stood at 44%, with only 27% against. Those numbers demonstrate a broad consensus in favour of restoring structured opportunities for young people.
A structured mobility scheme with the EU would enhance the UK’s soft power. Our influence in Europe and beyond is built not only on economic and security relationships—important as they are—but on cultural and personal connections. When young people live and work abroad, they form lasting relationships, break down barriers and build bridges—both literally and figuratively, I think. These connections contribute to Britain’s standing in the world, making us a more attractive and engaged partner on the international stage.
Some are arguing that concerns about immigration should deter us from pursuing such a scheme. One or two speakers have done that. As I have said, I speak as a former Immigration Minister and there is a clear misunderstanding of the proposals. A youth mobility agreement is not unrestricted migration; it is a temporary reciprocal arrangement that benefits both sides. Those coming into the UK must have financial means to support themselves and it does not offer a path to citizenship. It is not—I repeat, not—a return to free movement.
We know that the EU has expressed its openness to having an agreement. To a large extent, the ball is now in the UK’s court. If we fail to engage constructively, we risk further diminishing our ties with our closest allies and depriving future generations of the opportunities that all their predecessors enjoyed.
The benefits of youth mobility are clear, but we must place this in the wider context of our relationship with Europe. This is not just good for young people; it is good for the UK and good for Europe. The EU has already put an offer on the table and our Government should now engage, negotiate and reach a fair and beneficial agreement, without further delay. By doing so, we can secure meaningful gains across multiple sectors, foster a closer and more co-operative relationship with our European neighbours and, in doing so, enhance our collective security and economic prosperity.
In conclusion, this is an opportunity that we really must seize. I urge the Government to act in the best interests of our young people and our country.
Global IT Outage
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will discuss my noble friend’s point with colleagues and will write back to him as soon as possible.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, a member of my family returning to the United States in the last few days has been very inconvenienced by what occurred. I ask the Minister to adequately look at the question of redress in any legislation that we now pursue in relation to data protection generally, and to AI for that matter. It is a vital component of the GDPR. I therefore ask her to look carefully at this and make sure that adequate redress is available across all these matters.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Government are reviewing what happened and will implement any lessons learned as a matter of urgency. We appreciate the significant inconvenience caused to those affected, but it is a matter for individual operators. The consumer rules cover specific compensation entitlement. From my view, the essential point arising from the issues caused by CrowdStrike is the need to strengthen our resilience, which is what this Government intend to do.