Autumn Budget 2024

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That this House takes note of the Autumn Budget 2024.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this Budget debate in your Lordships’ House, and to speak alongside so many distinguished and expert noble Lords. It is, of course, a particular pleasure given it is the first Budget of a Labour Government in 14 years. I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, to her place and to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Booth-Smith, to your Lordships’ House. I very much look forward to his maiden speech.

This was a Budget to fix the foundations; to restore stability by repairing the public finances; to rebuild our public services after years of neglect; to choose investment rather than decline; and to keep our promises to working people. It was a once-in-a-generation Budget, on a scale commensurate with the challenging inheritance we faced. That meant taking difficult decisions, but they were the right decisions. As a result of those decisions, we have now wiped the slate clean. We have created a foundation of stability on which we will take forward our agenda of growth and reform, delivering the mandate for change on which this Government were elected.

Let me set out first the inheritance we faced. As noble Lords will know, on her arrival at the Treasury in July, the Chancellor was informed of a £22 billion black hole in the public finances—a series of commitments made by the previous Government which they did not fund and did not disclose. Ahead of this Budget, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility conducted a review into the circumstances surrounding a meeting it held with the Treasury on 8 February this year at which the Government were obliged to disclose all unfunded pressure against the reserve.

The OBR’s review has established that at that point the previous Government concealed £9.5 billion. The OBR’s report states that they

“did not provide the OBR with all information available”.

It has made 10 recommendations to prevent this happening again, which we have accepted in full. Of course, at that point, the previous Government still had five months left in office, during which time they continued to amass unfunded commitments which they did not disclose. By the Spring Budget, Treasury records show these had reached £16.3 billion. By July, they had reached £22 billion.

The Treasury has now provided to the OBR a line-by-line breakdown of these unfunded commitments —260 separate pressures that the previous Government did not fund and did not disclose. Neither did they budget for costs which they knew would materialise, including funding for compensation schemes for two terrible injustices. So, this Budget provides, for the first time, funding of £11.8 billion to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal and sets aside £1.8 billion to compensate victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal.

However, the country did not just inherit broken public finances; it inherited broken public services too: NHS waiting lists at record levels, children in portakabins as school roofs crumbled, rivers filled with polluted waste. Yet since 2021, there had been no spending review—no detailed plans for departmental spending set out beyond this year.

Faced with this reality, any responsible Chancellor would have to act. Some may argue otherwise: that we should have ignored the problems in the public finances. But that is the path of irresponsibility, the path chosen by the Liz Truss mini-Budget, when mortgage costs rose by £300 a month, for which working people are still paying the price. This Government’s number one commitment is economic and fiscal stability. That is why the very first Act we passed was the Budget Responsibility Act, strengthening the OBR, and why we have established robust fiscal rules. These fiscal rules put the public finances on a sustainable path while allowing a step change in investment to drive long-term growth.

The first rule is the stability rule. This brings the current Budget into balance so we do not borrow to fund day-to-day spending. The significant fiscal consolidation over the course of this Parliament takes borrowing as a share of GDP from 4.5% to 2.1%, as we achieve the biggest current budget surplus in over 20 years. Over the past 14 years, borrowing averaged 5.6% of GDP; over this Parliament, it will average 2.6%.

But while being tough on spending, we must create the space for investment. We inherited a situation where the UK is the only G7 country with private investment levels below 20% as a share of the economy, and we inherited plans where public investment was set to fall from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP. As the IMF has said, more public investment is badly needed in the UK. So, the second fiscal rule is the investment rule. As set out in our manifesto, we will target debt falling as a share of the economy, which will be defined as “net financial debt”, a measure that has been published by the Office for National Statistics, and forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, since 2016. Net financial debt recognises that government investment delivers returns for the taxpayer by counting not just the costs of investment but the benefits too. Like our stability rule, the OBR has confirmed the investment rule will also be met two years early.

To meet our stability rule, in the context of the hole in the public finances, the compensation schemes that were not funded and the need to avoid austerity in our public services, the Budget raises taxes by £40 billion. Of course, before any Government can consider changes to taxation, they must first ensure efficiency and reduce wasteful spending. The Budget set a 2% productivity target for all departments; it took steps to ensure welfare spending is more sustainable; and it ensured more people will pay the tax that they already owe.

This Budget made another important choice: to keep the manifesto commitment we made to working people to not increase their income tax, their national insurance or VAT. And we went further, by freezing fuel duty and raising the national minimum and living wage. Compare that to the choice made by the previous Government, who froze income tax thresholds, costing working people nearly £30 billion. We could have extended that freeze, but that was not the choice we made. Instead, from 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again.

However, this Budget does involve some very difficult choices. We will increase employers’ national insurance contributions by 1.2 percentage points to 15 % from April 2025 and reduce the secondary threshold from £9,100 to £5,000 per year. At the same time, to protect the smallest companies, we will increase the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, meaning 865,000 employers will not pay any national insurance at all and over 1 million employers will now pay the same or less than they did before.

The lower rate of capital gains tax will be increased from 10% to 18%, and the higher rate from 20% to 24%, meaning the UK will continue to have the lowest capital gains tax rate of any European G7 economy. We have maintained the lifetime limit for business asset disposal relief at £1 million to encourage entrepreneurs to invest in their businesses. Business asset disposal relief will remain at 10% this year, before rising to 14% in April and to 18% from 2026-27, maintaining a significant gap compared to the higher rate of capital gains tax.

The Budget also set out additional tax measures including introducing a new vaping products duty and measures on tobacco duty, vehicle excise duty, air passenger duty and alcohol duty, as well as making reforms to inheritance tax on pensions and on agricultural and business property. We also delivered on our commitments to abolish the non-dom tax regime, replacing it with a new residence-based scheme, introduced a fairer approach to the way carried interest is taxed as well as reforms to the stamp duty land tax surcharge for second homes and to the energy profits levy, and we introduced VAT on private school fees.

There was no bigger failure of the previous Government than on growth. First, they introduced austerity, which choked off investment. Then their Brexit deal created new trade barriers equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for our manufacturing sector and a 21% increase in tariffs for our services sector, permanently reducing growth by 4%. Finally, the disastrous mini-Budget crashed the economy and sent inflation and interest rates soaring.

Had the UK economy grown over the past 14 years at the average rate of other OECD economies, it would have been £171 billion larger. When the Bank of England cut interest rates last week, it forecast that the Budget would add 0.75% to growth next year and that unemployment will now fall. Over the course of this Parliament, the OBR says that growth will be largely unchanged, in the context of a Budget that had to take some very difficult decisions to clear up the mess that we inherited; and, over the longer term, the OBR says that this Budget will permanently increase GDP by 1.4%.

The IMF has welcomed

“the Budget’s focus on boosting growth through a needed increase in public investment”,

but, of course, we need to go further and faster. That is why economic growth remains this Government’s central mission. We have set out extensive planning reforms, a new national wealth fund, new local growth plans and a modern industrial strategy. We have created Skills England and the new growth and skills levy. We will shortly publish the “Get Britain Working” White Paper to tackle inactivity, and the Chancellor will set out pension reforms in her Mansion House speech later this week—all of which will significantly boost growth and none of which are yet included in the OBR’s forecast.

Our growth strategy must also, of course, be developed and delivered alongside business. We are very aware that we are asking business to contribute more and that impacts of the rise in employer national insurance will be felt beyond business, as the OBR has set out. We know that successful businesses depend on the skilled and healthy workforce that these funds aim to deliver. But most of all, we know—because they tell us—that businesses depend on the stability that this Budget, by repairing the public finances, provides.

To ensure certainty, alongside the Budget we published a corporate tax road map, which confirms our commitment to cap the rate of corporation tax at 25%, the lowest in the G7. We are maintaining full expensing and the £1 million annual investment allowance, and continuing the current rates for research and development reliefs to drive innovation. We have announced permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We have frozen the small business multiplier, extended the enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes until 2035, and taken action on late payments and non-financial reporting burdens. Finally, we know that the significant new capital investment in transport and housing that this Budget delivers is vital for businesses to grow.

The difficult decisions that this Budget takes are for a purpose: not just to repair our public finances but to rebuild our public services. In this, the first phase of the spending review, we have prioritised day-to-day funding towards delivering on our manifesto commitments. Day-to-day spending from 2024-25 onwards will now grow by 1.5% in real terms. In addition, the £100 billion of capital that we set out will drive growth across our country. To unlock the growth industries of the future, we will protect investment in research and development with more than £20 billion of funding. We are providing over £5 billion to progress our manifesto commitment to build 1.5 million homes. On transport, to help grow our economy across the north of England, we are investing in faster and more reliable services, including the trans-Pennine upgrade. We will deliver east-west rail to drive growth between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge, and we have committed the funding to begin tunnelling work for HS2 to run through to Euston station.

To bring new jobs to Britain, the Budget funded 11 new green hydrogen projects across England, Scotland and Wales. We have also announced significant investment between government and business in carbon capture and storage. We are also increasing the core schools budget by £2.3 billion next year to support our pledge to hire thousands more teachers into key subjects, and we are tripling investment in breakfast clubs, putting them into thousands of schools.

Of course, we are also beginning the work of fixing the NHS after years of neglect. Because of the difficult decisions that we have taken on tax, and because of our investment rule, the Budget announced that we are now able to provide a £22.6 billion increase in the NHS budget over two years. That is the largest real-terms growth in NHS spending, outside Covid years, since 2010. Because of this record injection of funding, the thousands of additional beds that it will secure and the reforms that we are delivering, we can now bring waiting lists down more quickly, moving towards our target for an 18-week waiting time, by delivering our manifesto commitment of 40,000 extra appointments every week.

This Budget delivers on the mandate the British people gave this Government: to fix the foundations of our economy and deliver change. The choices we have made are the right choices. They are not the easy ones but the responsible ones: to repair the public finances, restore stability, rebuild our NHS, invest in the national interest and protect working people.

There are, of course, different choices that could be made. Let us be clear, however: not to make the choices we made on tax would make it impossible to protect working people; not to support the funding for public services would mean cuts to schools and the NHS; and not to support our investment rule would mean delaying or cancelling thousands of projects delivering growth right across our country. We have made our choice: restoring stability, protecting working people, fixing the foundations of our economy, investing in our future and rebuilding Britain. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to close today’s debate on the Budget. I am grateful to all 75 noble Lords for their insights, differing perspectives and expertise. I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Booth-Smith, on his excellent maiden speech, bringing his valuable first-hand experience of government and policy-making to your Lordships’ House. I look forward to his further contributions in debates such as this.

This was a Budget to fix the foundations; to restore stability by repairing the public finances; to rebuild our public services after years of neglect; to choose investment, rather than decline; and to keep our promises to working people. It was a Budget notable in scale, but commensurate with the challenging inheritance that we faced.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, in his opening speech for the Opposition, began by denying the need to rebuild the public finances and the need to restore stability to our economy. He failed yet again to say sorry for the past 14 years, in particular for the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget. What he went on to defend was, in itself, very revealing. He defended second homes being bought up by foreign owners, pushing up prices for first-time buyers. He opposed reintroducing a reduced rate of inheritance tax above £3 million. He opposed VAT on private school fees, cutting £1.7 billion from state schools. He defended tax-relief pensions being used not as a retirement vehicle but as a tax-planning tool. It was very clear where the party opposite’s priorities lie, and the choices that it would make, and they would certainly not be for working people or public services.

Several noble Lords spoke in positive terms about this Government’s economic inheritance, including the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Lea of Lymm. The reality is that, over the past 14 years, the UK’s economic performance was poor, as my noble friends Lord Hannett of Everton and Lord Bach, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Kramer, said. Had the UK economy grown at the average rate of other OECD economies, our economy would have been £171 billion larger. Inflation peaked under the previous Government at 11.1%, as my noble friend Lady Crawley said, and was above target for 33 months in a row. It was the worst Parliament for living standards ever recorded. The UK was the only country in the G7 to have a lower employment rate and a higher inactivity rate than before Covid. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, public services were pushed to breaking point, with sewage in our rivers and our schools literally crumbling.

Some noble Lords focused on this Government’s fiscal inheritance and the £22 billion black hole, including the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, who seemed to be confused by the fact that the numbers went up over time. It was mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Lea of Lymm. The Treasury has provided to the OBR a line-by-line breakdown of the previous Government’s unfunded commitments—260 separate pressures. Noble Lords need not just listen to the OBR and the Treasury; they need look only at the outturn data. Central government current expenditure published by the ONS shows that, for the six months since March, the outturn is £11.8 billion higher than forecast. That is £11.8 billion over six months, well on course for £22 billion over the year.

This Government’s number one commitment is to economic and fiscal stability. That is why we support the fiscal framework, the OBR and the independence of the Bank of England, which the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham asked about. It is also why we have established robust fiscal rules, which put the public finances on a sustainable path while allowing a step change in investment to drive long-term growth. The stability rule brings the current Budget into balance so that we do not borrow to fund day-to-day spending, as my noble friends Lady Crawley and Lord Murphy of Torfaen said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, mentioned borrowing. Borrowing as a share of GDP falls over this Parliament, from 4.5% to 2.1%, as we achieve the biggest current Budget surplus in over 20 years. Over the past 14 years, borrowing averaged 5.6% of GDP. Over this Parliament, it will average 2.6% of GDP. However, while being tough on spending, we must create the space for investment.

As the IMF has said, more public investment is badly needed in the UK, so the investment rule, as set out in our manifesto—despite the claim made by the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Bridges of Headley—will target debt falling as a share of the economy. It will be defined as net financial debt. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, for his welcome of this move. He stressed the need for the guard-rails we have set out and the importance of what this investment is spent on. I am grateful, too, for the support of my noble friends Lord Liddle and Lord Chandos, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway pointed out, the previous Government planned to cut public investment, a recipe for continued decline.

To address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, these rules are actually tougher than those of the previous Government. To stop fiscal commitments being endlessly deferred for five years, this is the last year when the fiscal rules will target the fifth and final year of the forecast. The rules must be met by 2029-30 at this Budget, and until 2029-30 becomes the third year of the forecast, at which point both rules will target the third year of the rolling forecast period. This is a much tougher constraint than the previous Government’s borrowing rule: to borrow up to 3% of GDP by the fifth year of the forecast.

To repair our public finances and rebuild our public services, the Budget raised taxes by £40 billion. It was therefore a very significant Budget, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, set out. It was, though, commensurate with the challenges that we faced. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, described it as bold; it was of course the most fiscally significant Budget since his Spring Budget of 1993. The Budget meant taking difficult decisions, to address the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Lamont. As a result of those decisions, we have now wiped the slate clean, meaning that we never have to do a Budget like this again. We have set tough fiscal rules, which we meet two years early, and set the envelope for the second phase of the spending review, which we will stick to.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, helpfully quoted our manifesto, as mentioned also by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Let me be clear: this Budget keeps every single manifesto commitment we made to working people—to not increase their income tax, their national insurance or VAT. We went further by freezing fuel duty, on which I disagree with the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lord Whitty, who said that it should have been raised during a time of cost of living pressures. I also disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, who said that we should have increased employees’ national insurance.

The choice made by the previous Government was to freeze income tax thresholds, costing working people nearly £30 billion. We could have extended that freeze but instead, from 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. The noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury, mentioned how many more people had been pulled into tax.

This Budget does, though, involve some very tough decisions. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Burns, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Londesborough, Lord Oates, Lord Shipley, Lord Gadhia, Lord Razzall and Lord Northbrook, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheatcroft and Lady Penn, focused on the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions by 1.2 percentage points to 15% from April 2025. We of course recognise that this involves asking businesses to contribute more. We have acknowledged that the impacts of this measure will be felt beyond businesses too, as set out by the OBR.

The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Northbrook, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned small businesses and their importance to the economy. We are protecting the smallest companies by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will not pay any national insurance at all, and that more than 1 million employers will now pay the same or less than they did before. The Federation of Small Businesses said in its Budget response:

“Against a challenging backdrop, today’s Budget shows a clear direction in business policy now for the whole of this Parliament to target support at small businesses … prioritising everyday entrepreneurs working in local communities in all parts of the country”.


Some noble Lords raised the issue of compensation, including the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler of Enfield and Lady Kramer. The Government have chosen to compensate the public sector with £5.1 billion to ensure there is sufficient funding to support our vital public services, including the NHS. We will work with departments to ensure that the funding set aside is allocated appropriately. The Department of Health will confirm funding for GPs for 2025-26 as part of the usual GP contract process later in the year, including through consultation with the sector. The spending review includes an investment of £100 million. The Government also provided a significant funding top-up to local government, which can be used for pressures including adult social care.

The Government of course recognise the need to protect the smallest charities. Like any other eligible business, they will benefit from the significant changes to the employment allowance, which mean more than half of businesses with NICs liabilities either gain or see no change next year. Charities will still be able to claim employer NICs reliefs, including those for under 21s and under 25 apprentices, where eligible.

The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, asked about the impact on employment. Following the Budget, the Bank of England now expects that rather than unemployment increasing, as it had previously forecast, unemployment will now fall. According to the OBR, employment will grow over the forecast period by 1.2 million.

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, asked about the impact on living standards. The last Parliament saw living standards stagnate and was the worst Parliament for living standards ever recorded. The OBR forecast shows that real household disposable income will increase by an average of 0.5% in real terms each year. That is a world away from the stagnating living standards we saw under the last Government, and in the context of a Budget where we had to take some very difficult decisions to clean up the mess that we inherited.

Many noble Lords focused their contributions on economic growth. As several noble Lords mentioned, there was no bigger failure of the previous Government than their failure on growth. My noble friend Lord Whitty and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, mentioned their austerity, their Brexit deal—which permanently reduced growth by 4%—and their disastrous mini-Budget, which, as my noble friend Lady Liddell rightly said, crashed the economy.

My noble friend Lord Liddle, the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Razzall and Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, were right to reinforce the importance of this Government’s European reset to address the trade barriers that businesses now face.

When last week the Bank of England cut interest rates, it forecast that the Budget would add 0.75% to growth next year. Over the course of this Parliament, the OBR says growth is largely unchanged. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, said this Budget did nothing for growth, but over the longer term the OBR says that this Budget will permanently increase GDP by 1.4% due to the investment that his party is opposing. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, also opposed that investment but called for more growth.

As the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Young of Cookham, and my noble friend Lord Liddle said, we need to go further and we need to go faster. That is why economic growth remains this Government’s central mission.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, rightly focused on GDP per head and productivity. She raised an interesting suggestion which I will happily look at.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, mentioned debt. The OBR shows that the best way to make debt sustainable is to increase productivity.

As my noble friend Lord Eatwell set out, long-term reforms are vital. We have set out extensive planning reforms, a new national wealth fund and a modern industrial strategy, and created Skills England. I totally agree with my noble friends Lord Liddle and Lord Monks on skills and that we must go further.

We will shortly publish the “Get Britain Working” White Paper to tackle inactivity, and the Chancellor will set out pension reforms—which the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, asked about, and the noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, commented on—in her Mansion House speech later this week. All of these things will significantly boost growth, and none of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, observed, are yet included in the OBR’s forecast.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and my noble friend Lord Sahota spoke about the importance of regional growth. In the Budget we set out the first steps in our approach to spreading growth across the country through devolution, investment and reform. We gave mayors greater control of their budgets by announcing the first integrated settlements for the West Midlands and Greater Manchester from 2025-26. We invested in major railway projects, and we confirmed funding for investment zones and freeports.

The noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Gadhia and Lord Forsyth, spoke about inflation and interest rates. The OBR is forecasting that inflation and interest rates will fall over the course of this Parliament. That is very different from the previous Parliament, when inflation peaked at 11.1% and was above target for 33 consecutive months, and when mortgages rose by an average of £300 a month following the Liz Truss mini-Budget.

My noble friend Lord Bradley spoke about the importance of growth to investment, and I agree with the points that he made. As several noble Lords set out, including the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Moyo, private investment is a vital part of addressing the growth challenge. That is why this Budget delivers stability by putting on a sustainable path the public finances, which are an essential foundation for growth and investment. To ensure certainty, in the Budget we published a Corporate Tax Roadmap, which confirms our commitment to cap the rate of corporation tax at 25%, the lowest in the G7.

The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, asked about enterprise. We have extended the enterprise investment and venture capital trust schemes until 2035. We have also taken action on late payments and non-financial reporting burdens. As my noble friend Lady Liddell said, at the recent international investment summit we saw over £60 billion of new investment creating nearly 40,000 new jobs.

I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke against the increase in the national living wage.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I did not speak against the rise in the living wage. If the Minister goes through Hansard, he will find that to be the case.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will check, but it did sound very much like it to me.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke against the plan to make work pay. But, as my noble friends Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, Lord Monks and Lord Hallett of Everton pointed out, there is now a wealth of evidence that greater in-work security, better pay, more skills and more autonomy in the workplace have substantial economic benefits. A more secure and productive workforce is good for business and good for working people, because each depends on the success of the other.

Many noble Lords focused on some of the other tax measures contained in the Budget. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, asked about stamp duty, which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell. We are reforming stamp duty land tax so that those who buy second homes pay two percentage points more than before. This will support an estimated 130,000 additional people to buy their first home.

Many noble Lords mentioned agricultural property relief. They included the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Forsyth, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Dobbs, Lord de Clifford, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Empey, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, Lord Northbrook and Lord Shipley, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Humphreys, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. In terms of inheritance tax, currently the largest estates pay a lower effective tax rate than smaller estates. That cannot be right, so we are reforming agricultural property relief and business property relief to reduce this unfairness, while protecting small family farms. Almost three-quarters of estates claiming the relief will be unaffected. It is expected to affect around 500 claims next year.

We should be clear that agricultural property relief is given on top of the normal inheritance tax thresholds. Individuals can pass up to £500,000 to a direct descendant, and then agricultural property relief will provide another £1 million tax-free allowance. This means a couple can pass up to £3 million tax free. Above that, there is a 50% discount on inheritance tax, so it is a rate of only 20% and any liability can be paid in 10 yearly instalments which, to answer the noble Earl, Lord Devon, will be interest free.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about valuing property for business property relief. There is an established process for valuing business property, which will continue to apply.

On inheritance tax on pensions, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Lainston, seemed unsure whether pensions are a savings vehicle or a tax planning vehicle. The fact is, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton said, that these reforms remove distortions resulting from pensions tax policy over the past decade, which have led to pensions being openly used and marketed as a tax planning vehicle to transfer wealth rather than to fund retirement.

Several noble Lords raised the issue of VAT on private schools, including the noble Lords, Lord Johnson of Lainston, Lord Forsyth, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, Lord Lexden and Lord Borwick. This raises £1.7 billion a year—money to benefit the 94% of pupils who attend state schools. The new leader of the Opposition has that said she will reverse this measure, so she will of course need to say where her cuts to state schools will fall. The impact assessment, published alongside the Budget, shows that 35,000 pupils will move to state schools—less than 0.5% of the state school population and lower than previous estimates had suggested.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, asked about children with special educational needs. Children with the most acute needs, whose places in a private school have been deemed necessary by local authorities, are protected from the VAT impacts because local authorities can reclaim VAT. To improve outcomes for the most vulnerable children and to ensure that the system is financially sustainable, the Budget provided a £1 billion uplift in funding for special educational needs—a 6% real-terms increase.

The difficult decisions this Budget takes are for a purpose—not just to repair our public finances but to rebuild our public services, as my noble friend Lord Bach observed. I happily join my noble friend Lady Thornton in welcoming the work of the Women’s Budget Group.

We have set the envelope for the second phase of the spending review, which we will stick to. That will involve some tough choices on spending. Several noble Lords asked about reform, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Our reform agenda will be central to improving services going forward, including our 2% efficiency target for all government departments.

My noble friend Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath set out the increased funding that the Budget provides to the NHS. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, asked what the NHS funding pays for—it is for 40,000 more appointments a week, £1.5 billion for new diagnostic scanners and new surgical hubs, and an expansion of mental health support, to name just a few. I think I heard the noble Baroness saying that more should be spent while opposing the increase in employer national insurance contributions that pays for it.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lea of Lymm, observed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, mentioned, the situation we inherited from the previous Government—the only major economy where inactivity has not returned to pre-pandemic levels—is completely unacceptable. We will publish a White Paper to get Britain working; my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton asked for a date, and I tell him that it will be later this month. Next year, we will publish a White Paper on sickness benefit reform.

The noble Lord, Lord Desai, spoke about the importance of the welfare state. My noble friends Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Wilcox of Newport mentioned that we provided £1 billion to extend the household support fund and discretionary housing payments to help those facing financial hardship with the cost of essentials. We have reduced the level of debt repayments that can be taken from a household’s universal credit payment each month, meaning that 1.2 million of the poorest households will keep more of their award each month, lifting children out of poverty.

As my noble friends Lord McConnell, Lady Liddell, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lord Murphy of Torfaen said, we are providing funding to support public services and drive growth across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with the largest real-terms funding since devolution.

My noble friend Lord McConnell and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, spoke about spending on overseas development assistance. ODA budgets have been set for the next two years to enable the UK to spend 0.5% of GNI. I reassure them that the Government remain committed to restoring development spending to 0.7% of GNI as soon as the fiscal circumstances allow.

My noble friend Lord McConnell also asked about the Integrated Security Fund. The ODA programme budget, including the Integrated Security Fund, will increase by 2025-26 to £9.2 million.

I am short of time, so I shall write to my noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe about her housebuilding and social housing questions.

The difficult decisions that we made in this Budget, which have been debated here today, were made for a purpose—to repair the public finances, restore stability, rebuild our NHS, invest in the national interest and protect working people. It was, of course, possible to make different choices, to ignore the problems in our public finances, to not rebuild public services or invest in the fabric of our nation and to fail to protect working people. But we should remember that, at the last election, the country voted for change. As many of my noble friends have pointed out, the British people did not overwhelmingly reject the previous Government because they thought the choices they had made were the right ones. They gave this Government a mandate to fix the foundations of our economy and to deliver change. That is exactly the mandate that this Budget delivers on.

We have made our choices. They are the only responsible choices—to protect working people, restore stability and invest in Britain’s future.

Motion agreed.

United Kingdom Declining Birth Rate

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s declining birth rate and its likely effect on the future tax base of the country.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, in its annual fiscal risks and sustainability assessment, published on 12 September, the Office for Budget Responsibility has projected an additional 6.5 million people in employment by 2074. This will support future tax receipts.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. The UK’s tax system discourages childbearing; it is one of the least family-friendly in the OECD. No allowances are made for dependants, so our tax system also disadvantages single parents. The current level of marriage allowance gives scant recognition of low-earning or non-earning second parents. Child benefit reform, announced earlier this year, which took both incomes in a household into account and partly mitigated families’ tax situation, was repealed in last month’s Budget. How will this Government make our tax system more family-friendly?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The example he gives of the reform that is no longer going ahead is an interesting one. It was a £1.4 billion commitment made by the previous Government but not a single penny was put behind it in the Budget that they prepared. It is exactly an example of how we got to £22 billion of unfunded spending—it simply was not affordable. If noble Lords opposite would like to find that £1.4 billion or tell us how to raise it, we would be happy to spend it. This Government are committed to family-friendly policies; it is at the core of our opportunities mission. In the Budget, we allocated £8 billion to family services because it is one of our key priorities.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, low wages, poverty, poor housing, food, the high cost of living and household debt dissuade many people from having children. the eradication of poverty must be a priority for the Government. Can the Minister ensure that, within a decade, no one on the national minimum wage will pay any income tax or national insurance, and that the cost of that policy will be borne by the ultra-rich? After all, 1% of the population has more wealth than 70% of the population combined. When will he do that?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble friend on that, but I agree with him that alleviating poverty should be central to the Government’s objectives. Clearly, work is one of the best routes out of poverty. Equalising women’s participation rates in the economy with those of men would add 1.3 million economically active people into the workforce, which is why helping women back into work is central to the Government’s goals.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, our demographic profile lies at the heart of this Question. I quote from the ONS, which said that

“the population is projected to age twice as quickly under zero migration than under a high migration scenario”.

Facing our dependency ratio, which is worsening by the year, should we not be resetting the conversation on immigration to recognise the role that it plays both in prosperity and in the provision of public services? Does the Minister share my fear that we are ceding this issue to a right wing that has decided that raising resentment and scapegoating is a glide path to power?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I agree with much of the sentiment that sits behind it. The Government recognise and value the contribution that legal migration makes to our country. We will continue to strike a balance between ensuring that we have access to the skills that we need while encouraging businesses to invest in the domestic workforce.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

Further to that question, what conclusions do the Government draw from the substantial evidence now that immigration at the margin increases the tax yield by more than it increases public expenditure?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is a very important point and one that we should retain as we make policy.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, was the Minister not moved by reports in the press that AI is going to account for 6 million jobs in this country? If that happens, will we not be quite grateful for a low birth rate?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We have to ensure that changing technology works to the benefit of all in society and contributes to our key objective of economic growth.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, it appears that the major problem is the number of older people now living longer. It is not a problem for them or for us but it has economic implications. Is it not the case that it takes two working people in each household to pay tax to keep one pensioner at home? What are we going to do to bridge the gap between the number of people working and the number who are not?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Clearly, we have an ageing society and there are associated costs with that. That is why increasing the levels of economic growth in our country is so important, so that we have the resources to fund the priorities that matter to us.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, we will never get women back to work unless we have adequate childcare, which this country has failed to provide. In all the years that I have been involved in feminist things, we have been behind the curve. Can the Minister update us on where the Government are in their provision of free childcare? Are there enough staff in the nurseries and enough places for the children of young women who would like nothing more than to get back into the workplace and pay tax?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I 100% agree with what the noble Baroness says. The ONS has said that the two biggest barriers to people having children currently are a lack of affordable housing and a lack of affordable childcare. The Government are prioritising making childcare more affordable. We will provide an additional £1.8 billion next year to continue the expansion of government-funded childcare, bringing the total spending on childcare to over £8 billion. This will support working families and help parents, particularly mothers, stay in work and return to work.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that we missed a trick, as we saw the internet develop and never found any ways in which we could start to use it as a tax base? To pick up the question of AI, can we ensure that the Treasury is doing some forward-thinking on this, not just in UK terms but about the way that we need to develop international relationships in regard to tax on a worldwide basis?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend makes some very interesting points. I assure him that the Treasury is working closely with the Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology to advance the things that he mentions.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we have just had a Budget which the OBR says will lead to a loss of jobs and the first ever taxes on education. What does this do for family life and for the birth rate in the shorter term?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

To clarify, the OBR is very clear that, over the next five years, employment will grow by 1.2 million people.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculates that 30% of children are living in poverty. Does the Minister have access to any information on what that might mean for long-term fertility prospects in this country?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point, which is why reducing child poverty is central to this Government’s objectives. The previous Labour Government made massive strides towards reducing child poverty and, unfortunately, we had to sit and watch while it rose under the party opposite over 14 years. We have established the Child Poverty Taskforce to ensure it falls. It is a contributing factor, but so are affordable housing and affordable childcare, as I have said, and we are prioritising all those things.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, on the birth rate, does the Minister agree that, although there are dozens of reasons for us to criticize him, this is one area in which we can be grateful to Boris Johnson?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I sympathise with my noble friend’s point, but I find it hard to sympathise with that man on anything.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, in providing additional childcare places, will the Government ensure that the additional staff are well trained and highly skilled? Perhaps we should be replacing the word “childcare” with the phrase “early education”, to make sure that children develop well and to give parents going back to work the confidence that their children will be properly looked after.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an absolutely central point. All the evidence shows that the first months and years of a child’s life are fundamental to the opportunities that they have throughout their life, so I agree wholeheartedly with everything that she said. Skills England, the new body that we have established, is there to make sure that exactly what the noble Baroness said about the skills available to that sector happens.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from all noble Lords on this group of amendments. As I set out in Committee, the Government recognise that the matter of controls on borrowing is an important consideration for noble Lords.

I listened carefully to the concerns raised at previous stages of the Bill. I found the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, to be particularly compelling. As such, I committed to sharing the underpinning memorandum of understanding, which sets out the parameters and controls relating to the power to borrow, as well as the original business case and the framework document. Following on from my commitment, these documents were shared with noble Lords and have been deposited in the Library. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her words just now.

The memorandum of understanding set out that borrowing by the Crown Estate will be limited to a maximum of 25% loan to value, defined as net debt-to-asset value, and that any borrowing within that limit can be undertaken only with the consent of the Treasury.

The framework document will be amended, as I have shared, to include references to borrowing powers, and the original business case produced by the Crown Estate makes the argument for the Crown Estate being able to borrow with the consent of the Treasury, in line with its peers, to ensure that it can continue to operate sustainably and drive maximum returns to the Exchequer.

I trust that having sight of these documents has been useful for noble Lords and has provided an additional opportunity for scrutiny of the proposed borrowing. Let me be clear that the Government agree that controls on borrowing must be in place. As I have set out previously, borrowing can be undertaken only with the consent of the Treasury and, as outlined in the memorandum of understanding, borrowing is not to exceed 25% of loan to value, defined as net debt-to-asset value. This is a clear and carefully chosen guard rail to ensure that sufficient limits are in place. The proposed powers will enable the Crown Estate to draw on its cash holdings first and, as such, it is not envisaged that these borrowing powers will be used in the short term.

Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, would require the Secretary of State to limit borrowing by the Crown Estate by affirmative regulations, and for the first set of regulations to set the limit at 25% net debt-to-asset value.

As debated in Committee, the principle here is whether a specific cap should be in statute. The Government’s view remains that the limit is better placed outside of legislation. The primary control, set out in the Bill, is the requirement for Treasury consent to be obtained prior to undertaking any borrowing. In addition to this important safeguard, we are retaining the requirement for the Crown Estate commissioners to maintain and enhance the value of the estate, while having due regard to the requirements of good management as set out in the 1961 Act.

Taken together, these two elements maintain and strengthen the existing and important fiduciary duty of the commissioners not to take decisions that could endanger the estate. The Government believe that these safeguards and the limits set out in the memorandum of understanding provide clear guard rails to the powers set out in the Bill.

The 1961 Act also contains a power of direction. This power is not altered by the Bill. It remains open to the Government to use in extremis; if, for example, there were concerns that the commissioners were endangering the core statutory purpose of the Crown Estate.

As I have set out previously, the Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government. It operates for profit and competes in the commercial markets for investment opportunities. To ensure that it can compete effectively, it needs the ability to borrow as its competitors can. Imposing a legislative cap on borrowing would likely place additional restrictions on the Crown Estate that its competitors in the private sector do not face. This would not be consistent with the Government’s vision for the Crown Estate: to ensure that it has flexibility to invest in activities that will drive increases in its revenues and, consequently, its returns to the public purse.

As set out in the Crown Estate’s original business case, which I have shared with noble Lords, the limit of 25% loan to value is consistent with its peers. I hope this demonstrates to noble Lords that these plans have been considered carefully.

Let me also be clear that any request by the Crown Estate to draw down on debt will be carefully considered by the Treasury in the context of the fiscal position and in line with our fiscal rules. As the Chancellor set out in the Budget, the Government have set out our robust fiscal rules alongside a set of responsible reforms to the fiscal framework to improve certainty, transparency and accountability. The stability and investment rules will put the public finances on a sustainable path while allowing the step change needed in investment to drive long-term growth.

I hope that these explanations are useful and reassure the House that the Crown Estate’s power to borrow will be carefully monitored and controlled within these parameters. I hope I have provided some clarity on the Government’s position and that as a result the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, although I am sorry to hear that she will not be able to support the amendment. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with her.

While I agree with the noble Baroness’s assessment of the documents that were published by the Minister—it was helpful to see the memorandum of understanding, the draft framework and the business case—that is not really the point, because they do not go far enough. Those documents can be amended by this or any future Government. As the Minister referred to, and as I tried to explain in my opening remarks, this is the original business case, but there is no business case that currently sets out what the relationship with GB Energy looks like and what it will do to borrowing.

GB Energy is going to invest billions of pounds. How much of that is going to come from GB Energy and how much from the Crown Estate? No one knows. It is important that we make sure that it is impossible for the Crown Estate to ramp up borrowing without at least some oversight from Parliament. The Minister said, “It’s okay—the maximum is 25%”, but of course this Government or any future Government can change that unilaterally.

The Minister mentioned that competitors somehow do not have any caps on borrowing. Of course they do; they are commercial businesses, so the caps on their borrowing will be set by their banks. If the Minister looks at the original business case that he shared with us, he will see that all the competitors sit around the same sort of level of loan to value.

To go back to the original point, this is a sensible, simple and reasonable amendment. It would put in place just two checks: first, whether the Crown Estate should be borrowing now, and up to 25%, with the assessment done on a new business case, including GB Energy; and, secondly, another check, at some point long in the future, if ever, should the Crown Estate ever want to go above 25%. I think our nation’s assets need that sort of protection, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton. This simple amendment seeks that the chair of the Crown Estate commissioners be appointed by the Treasury Select Committee. On these Benches, this seems like a reasonably sensible idea. This is an important appointment and should have an adequate level of pre-appointment scrutiny.

I welcome the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, sent yesterday, pointing out the established process for the Cabinet Office and that this could be added to the pre-appointment scrutiny list. To our minds, that is a very sensible answer and a way forward. It is a way of resolving this issue. My only real question in relation to this is that the Minister says this will be done in “due course”. Can he give us a clearer idea of what he means by that? What is the timeframe?

Further to that, in relation to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hain, calling for commissioners from individual countries to be appointed to the Crown Estate, I ask the Minister: will those appointments also be subject to this type of pre-appointment scrutiny?

I turn now to Amendment 14, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere. It seeks to require the approval of His Majesty’s Treasury for the disposal of assets over £10 million, and the commissioners to inform the Treasury if assets over a value of £10 million are disposed of in a single year, then requiring the Treasury to approve of the disposal of those assets and to report that to Parliament within 28 days.

Again, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, responded to this in his letter to all Peers yesterday, and we welcome that response. The Minister pointed out that this was a complicated matter, and that he would bring forward an amendment to address this concern. His engagement with that is welcome. This is an important issue—assets should not be disposed of by the Crown Estate without ministerial approval—but I seek further clarification from the Minister. When he says that this will be brought forward, will it be before Third Reading in this House? If it is not possible to bring that clarification forward before Third Reading, can the Minister give an undertaking that it will happen before Report in the other place?

On this amendment, our preference is that a compromise way forward is agreed. In fact, both amendments are matters that should be resolved without resorting to testing the opinion of the House.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. First, I would like to address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. I thank him very much for his engagement on this issue since Committee. I am also extremely grateful to him for raising the issues around the law relating to ownerless land and the process of escheat. It is a legally complex area and long overdue for reform. As a result of his intervention, Treasury officials are now engaging with the Law Commission on options for longer-term reform.

On the specific issues raised by the noble Lord, I am grateful to him for meeting with me, Treasury officials and the Crown Estate after Committee to discuss his specific concerns in detail. At the meeting we gained useful clarity that in cases of escheat the Crown Estate follows the valuation formula set out in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as he said.

As the noble Lord requested in Committee, I have agreed to update the framework document that governs the relationship between the Treasury and the Crown Estate to make this clear. The addition in paragraph 7.2 will set out that the commissioners have a responsibility to ensure that all public undertakings given on the Crown Estate’s behalf by Ministers in Parliament are met. I have raised the noble Lord’s suggestion about the specific accounting change with the Crown Estate and will follow up in due course.

Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, would require scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee, or any successor committee, of future chair appointments before the appointment can be made. She spoke persuasively on this in Committee, and I agree with many of the points she raised. For this reason, I am happy to confirm that the Treasury will work with the Cabinet Office to add the role of chair to the official pre-appointment scrutiny list. This will be in accordance with the already-established process by which significant roles, such as this, are added to the Cabinet Office’s pre-appointment scrutiny list. As I have set out, I will be very happy to update noble Lords in due course. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked when that will be. I will come back as soon as I have relevant information. We are already working with the Cabinet Office, and I do not envisage there being a significant delay.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

3: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Annual reportsIn section 2 of the Crown Estate Act 1961 (reports and accounts), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The annual report for a year in which a partnership between the Commissioners and Great British Energy is in operation must include a report on—(a) the activities of the Commissioners during the year under that partnership, and(b) any effects or benefits experienced during the year which were the result of activities of the Commissioners under that partnership.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Commissioners to include in their annual reports a summary of the things done, and of any effects or benefits or effects resulting from things done, under any partnership between themselves and Great British Energy. The duty will only apply in relation to a year in which such a partnership was in operation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address other noble Lords’ amendments in this group during my closing speech, after listening to the debate.

I have listened to the arguments and concerns put forward at Second Reading and in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, on how the new partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy will work and the difference it will make. The Crown Estate is of course keen to ensure that details of this partnership are publicly available on an ongoing basis, and the Government therefore propose an amendment to require the Crown Estate to include, in its existing annual report, a report on the activities of the commissioners during that year under the partnership with Great British Energy, and any effects or benefits during that year resulting from activities of the commissioners under the partnership.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her engagement on this matter, and to other noble Lords who have raised similar concerns, and I trust that this amendment meets those concerns. I hope that noble Lords feel able to support this amendment as a result. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5, which stands in my name. I thank the Minister and his Bill team for their time in what is always the busiest period of the Treasury’s life. He was happy to give time, and I am very grateful for that and for the sensible discussion that we had.

The amendment is designed to be the gentle pencil in the back, as I put it in Committee, in order that the Crown Estate Scotland be afforded the same freedoms and flexibilities that the Crown Estate will have following the passage of the Bill. I described in Committee how the Crown Estate Scotland had advised me that the Scottish Government were keen that it has those. I know that the UK Government are keen that it does so, as is the Crown Estate itself.

There are many opportunities for collaboration, particularly for energy projects in the North Sea at the moment, but there will be other opportunities as well for aquaculture. There is the ability to copy the good and avoid the bad, given that a number of copycat transactions might be done using Crown Estate property going forward. This is of course in all our interests, because ultimately this is very much part of the net-zero agenda, and the more the two Crown Estates can be aligned the better it will be for everybody in the long term.

The amendment is, as I said, a gentle pencil, designed to ensure that the UK entities do not down tools following the passage of this Act but carry on enthusiastically to ensure that Crown Estate Scotland benefits from the same freedoms and flexibilities. I therefore ask my only question of the Minister: does he share this aim of ensuring that those freedoms and flexibilities are afforded, and does he feel that this amendment is a proportionate way of going about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth. In tabling Amendment 5, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has hit upon something here; it is a report that would be worth doing. When I was having discussions about the Bill between Second Reading and Committee, I spoke to people in the port sector and they were very concerned that, if there is to be investment in ports in one part of the country, that investment should be equally likely to happen in another part of the country—namely, Scotland. It is an important opportunity, and I am sure that the Minister will respond in a positive fashion, as far as he can.

Turning to government Amendment 3, I am grateful to the Minister, who listened to concerns from all sides of the House about ensuring that sufficient information is forthcoming about the relationship between Crown Estate and Great British Energy. I am somewhat disappointed that we never saw the partnership document. I still suspect that that is because it does not exist, so I am not entirely sure what the partnership is; but let us put that to one side. I am looking forward to seeing information come through on the results of this partnership as we go forward.

I note what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about the intention behind his Amendment 8. Any noble Lord who has looked at the Crown Estate annual report will know that it is already quite detailed, and I appreciate that a lot of work has been put into sharing information about the organisation with stakeholders. I suspect that his amendment is too detailed to be wholly useful, but I am sure that he has picked out various elements that the Crown Estate will no doubt take note of and include in future reporting.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Let me once again say that I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, for her constructive engagement prior to today in relation to Amendment 3, tabled by the Government. It is important that certain details on the partnership between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy are publicly available on an ongoing basis, and I trust that this amendment meets the concerns raised on this matter by the noble Baroness and others across this House.

Amendment 8, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would create a new reporting requirement on the Crown Estate commissioners, requiring them to publish an annual report, to be sent to the Environmental Audit Committee of the House of Commons, which must consider the commissioners’ activity in the contribution to supporting local communities and economies, the achievement of the United Kingdom’s climate and environmental targets, the relationship with Great British Energy, a just transition to green energy, a jobs and skills transition into the green economy, the promotion of animal welfare in aquaculture on the Crown Estate, the protection of the foreshore on the Crown Estate and the protection of the seabed in the Crown Estate. It would also require the commissioners to appear before the Environmental Audit Committee if requested.

I thank the noble Earl for his constructive engagement on this matter prior to today. I agree with him that these are important areas and, as a result, we have agreed with the Crown Estate that we will make a further update to its public framework document to clarify that its annual report must continue to include a report on the Crown Estate’s activities in terms of sustainable development, covering the impact of its activities on the environment, society and the economy.

It is important that this Bill stands the test of time and that, as new, relevant areas of concern on the environment, society and the economy emerge over the coming decades, these are covered in the Crown Estate’s annual report too. The proposed changes to the framework document, which also directly address other concerns, have been made deliberately broad in an attempt to cover the wide range of specific concerns the House has raised, including those raised by the noble Earl. On Great British Energy specifically, as I have set out, the Government have also now tabled an amendment that creates a reporting requirement for the Crown Estate to cover in their existing annual report a summary of its activities in relation to Great British Energy.

I turn next to Amendment 5, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. This amendment would require a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, assessing any differences between the provisions made by this Act for the management of the Crown Estate in England and equivalent provisions for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland. I am grateful to the noble Earl for his engagement on this matter. He has also raised specific concerns about ensuring that the Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland are in analogous positions should this Bill pass.

As I set out in Committee, Section 36 of the Scotland Act 2016 inserted a new Section 90B into the Scotland Act 1998. Subject to certain exceptions, Section 90B provided for the devolution in relation to Scotland of the commissioners’ management functions relating to property, rights or interests in land in Scotland, and rights in relation to the Scottish zone. Devolution occurred on 1 April 2017 under, and in accordance with, the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017. The relevant property, rights and interests are now managed separately by Crown Estate Scotland under the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 and the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, as enacted by the Scottish Parliament. They do not form part of the Crown Estate as currently managed by the Crown Estate commissioners.

I share the noble Earl’s commitment in this area, and I would like to make that clear. The Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland hold similar operational priorities, and, naturally, the chief executives of both organisations must be, and are, in regular contact. There is also significant collaboration between the two organisations, for example on the offshore wind evidence and change programme, which is an initiative led and funded by the Crown Estate and in which Crown Estate Scotland is a key partner. The programme aims to de-risk and accelerate the delivery of offshore wind projects by funding research and data collection. Both organisations contribute to and benefit from research projects that address knowledge gaps and support the offshore wind consenting process. At a project level, Crown Estate Scotland was a partner in the predators and prey around renewable energy developments project. That focused on Scotland, particularly the Moray Firth and the Firth of Forth and Firth of Tay regions, but the project had broad relevance for the whole of the UK. The improved understanding gained from the project informs marine spatial planning and guides future offshore wind development.

The two organisations also share data on offshore activities through their partnership with the Marine Data Exchange, a digital platform established by the Crown Estate to provide a more comprehensive and integrated understanding of the UK’s seabed. Founded by the Crown Estate in 2013 as the first resource of its type, the Marine Data Exchange provides a world-leading digital platform for gathering and disseminating vital information on a wide range of offshore activities. It currently holds one of the world’s largest collections of freely available data relating to the seas around England, Wales and Northern Ireland and, thanks to the partnership with Crown Estate Scotland, is now extended to cover Scottish waters.

The two organisations also hold frequent discussions through the carbon capture utilisation and storage collocation forum, which is a collaborative effort run by the Crown Estate with input from Crown Estate Scotland and other stakeholders to explore the potential for collocating carbon capture and storage with offshore wind projects. If there are further areas of potential co-operation, I know that the Crown Estate will be more than willing to discuss them with its counterparts in Crown Estate Scotland. The Treasury is, of course, open to any request for a meeting from the Scottish Government and Crown Estate Scotland to discuss this Bill, and we are more than happy to share any policy thinking to help inform any changes they may wish to propose in the Scottish Parliament. I hope these explanations have been helpful and have provided some clarity on these points. I hope that the noble Earls, Lord Russell and Lord Kinnoull, will not press their amendments as a result.

Amendment 3 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the register as an owner of fishing rights and president of South West Rivers Association. I will also speak briefly, as the arguments have been well made by many noble Lords.

We have heard from noble Lords around the House that this is an important amendment that strikes at the heart of our care for the environment and animal welfare. It imposes reasonable obligations on the Crown Estate to take responsibility for environmental damage caused by salmon farming on its property, and for the welfare of the fish being farmed. As I understand it, there is only one salmon farm in our waters, off the coast of Northern Ireland, although there are 210 in Scottish waters. But this amendment will ensure that any future salmon farms are developed with those obligations in place.

In Committee, the Minister highlighted existing legislation and regulations that cover the salmon farming industry. However, given that the wild Atlantic salmon in our country is now on the IUCN red list, and given the sometimes dire conditions that farmed salmon are kept in, it is hardly surprising that my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean continues to press this amendment. We are disappointed that the Government have so far failed to see its merits, and we hope for a more constructive reaction from the Minister today. We on these Benches will support my noble friend if he decides to test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their points. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, would require the Crown Estate commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of salmon farms on the Crown Estate on an ongoing basis. Where that assessment determines that a salmon farm is causing environmental damage or has significant animal welfare issues, the Crown Estate would be required to revoke the relevant licence. The commissioners would also be required to make the same assessment of any applications for new licences for salmon farms and, where the commissioners determine that an application may cause environmental damage or raises significant animal welfare concerns, the Crown Estate must refuse the application.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, again made a powerful speech on his amendment. As I noted in Committee and can repeat today, I wholeheartedly support the objectives behind it but I regret that the Government are unable to support it. I recognise that this is not what the House wants to hear, but it remains the Government’s position that this amendment would duplicate protections that already exist in legislation or that are required by regulators as part of the licensing process for aquaculture. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, that, like the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I have had no contact with the industry. I may have written to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, following Committee, but, if not, I will absolutely ensure that I do.

All salmon farming in England is regulated with the intention to ensure that it is carried out in a responsible manner that respects the environment and protects consumer health and animal welfare. As noble Lords know and some have observed, the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is a devolved matter. My officials have been in contact on this matter with the Scottish Government, who have said that it is their view that salmon farming is strictly regulated to ensure that the environment on which the aquaculture sector and others rely is protected for future generations. They have also stated that Crown Estate Scotland works to ensure responsible use of Scotland’s seas through leasing the seabed. However, as is proper, it is the role of local authorities and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to conduct a thorough assessment of development proposals, including environmental impact assessments and habitats regulations appraisals, with advice from statutory and other consultees.

I am aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, and I recognise that many noble Lords will not agree with the case I have set out. However, I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, as someone who lives and farms in mid-Wales as well as writing music, I support this amendment. Living among people there, to me it seems that the comments we have just heard are very apposite. There is a feeling that we are slightly out on a limb and that, if devolution is to mean anything, this is a perfect example of where some empowerment could take place and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, we could see a certain amount of money returned to Wales to help with the preservation of all those things that people value there, not least the coast and countryside. We are threatened with all kinds of things—possible massive pylon building and massive problems with the Wye, which has been coming up today in various amendments. To be able to decide for ourselves, or for the Welsh Government to be able to decide on our behalf, seems an extremely important point in this debate. Therefore, I very much support the amendment.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in response to the amendments from my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys.

Turning first to Amendment 11, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hain with my noble friend Lord Murphy speaking on his behalf, I thank my noble friend Lord Hain for his constructive engagement on this topic and thank other noble Lords across the House who have spoken in favour of this amendment, which the Government support. The amendment requires that the board of Crown Estate commissioners must include a commissioner who is knowledgeable about Wales and that such a commissioner, alongside their existing responsibilities, must be responsible for giving advice about Wales to the board. It also requires equivalent positions for Northern Ireland and England and grants Welsh Ministers and the Executive Office in Northern Ireland the right to be consulted about the Welsh and Northern Irish appointments. These legislative requirements will ensure that the board of commissioners continue working in the best interests of Wales and Northern Ireland alongside their existing duties as commissioners. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, I say that I do not believe that the amendment in any way deliberately excludes the seabed.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that the Crown Estate absolutely welcomes the opportunity presented by the increase in the number of commissioners from eight to 12, to bring knowledge of the devolved nations even more directly to the board table. It is an enthusiastic supporter of this amendment. This will supplement the expertise of its director for the devolved nations, who is based in the Crown Estate’s recently opened Cardiff office and whose knowledge and extensive local engagement over the last two years is evidence of the importance to which it attaches understanding local conditions in Wales.

The commissioner responsible for giving advice to the board on Northern Ireland will provide valuable insight as the Crown Estate’s engagement and activities in Northern Ireland continue to evolve. For example, the Crown Estate’s chief executive was in Belfast last month meeting officials and Ministers from the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for the Economy. That form of engagement will move from strength to strength with the knowledge that such commissioners will offer to the board. These commissioners will certainly strengthen the Crown Estate’s ability and mission to deliver benefit for the whole UK at a time when devolution of the estate would significantly risk fragmenting the energy market, which would undermine international investor confidence and delay the progress towards net zero by an estimated 10 to 20 years, to the detriment of the whole UK.

Amendment 6, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, would require the Treasury to complete a transfer of the responsibility for the management of the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. As I have set out previously, the Government’s position is that there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form. As I set out in detail in Committee, the Crown Estate Act 1961 requires the Crown Estate commissioners to manage the Crown Estate as a commercial enterprise and with due regard to the requirements of good management. While the Crown Estate has goals which, under its own strategy, align with wider national policy objectives, the 1961 Act provides the Crown Estate with independence and autonomy to set and achieve its goals. It has shown itself over the last 60 years to be a trusted and successful organisation with a proven track record in effective management.

The Crown Estate is required to place profits into the UK Consolidated Fund each year, worth more than £4 billion over the past decade. This enables those revenues to fund UK government spending in reserved areas in Wales and Northern Ireland and supports the funding provided through the block grant. Those revenues are then allocated to public service priorities by the Government, subject to the usual parliamentary controls. As I have noted previously, that is a valuable outcome which we must be careful not to undermine. Devolving the Crown Estate to Wales would, as I have explained, most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the role of the Crown Estate in Wales. As I have previously set out, this entity would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability or capital and system abilities, nor benefit from the Crown Estate’s marine investments currently being made on a portfolio-wide basis across England and Wales. To devolve to Wales would disrupt these existing investments, since they would need to be restructured to accommodate a Welsh- specific entity.

I will not repeat the examples that I gave in Committee, but it remains the point that to devolve at this time would risk jeopardising the existing pipeline of offshore wind development in the Celtic Sea, planned into the 2030s, and the vital investment and jobs that this would bring across south Wales. As I noted in Committee, in addition to energy, the extensive jobs and supply chain requirements of the round 5 offshore wind opportunity in the Celtic Sea would also likely deliver significant benefits for Wales and the wider UK. As I mentioned in Committee, an advisory firm to the Crown Estate estimated that manufacturing, transporting and assembling the wind farms could create around 5,300 jobs and a £1.4 billion boost for the UK economy.

Devolution would also delay UK-wide grid connectivity reform. For Wales, the Crown Estate is working in partnership with the energy system operator to ensure that its current pipeline of Welsh projects, the biggest of which is round 5—which is expected to contribute enough energy capacity to power 4 million homes across the United Kingdom—can benefit from this co-ordinated approach to grid connectivity up front. Introducing a new entity, which would have control of assets only within Wales, into this complex operating environment where partnerships have already been formed, would not make commercial sense. A devolved entity would be starting from scratch midway through a multi-million-pound commercial tendering process when the Crown Estate is undertaking critical investment in the UK’s path towards net zero. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

I thank the Minister for those comments and everyone who has spoken in this debate, especially those who have supported the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. I was looking for a little more from the Minister about the responsibility of the commissioners. It seems that they are there to give advice, but there is no responsibility to report to Welsh Ministers or to discuss with them, which I hope that they will do in any case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I rise only briefly to say that we on these Benches want to see the Crown Estate taking action to improve our environment, and we share the concerns of other noble Lords in this area. We note that the Government have expressed their support for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I agree with her that it is all about outcomes in these circumstances. We agree that this is a sensible amendment and that it deserves the Government’s support.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in response to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Before I respond to the amendments relating to the environment, I reaffirm my strong support for the intention behind them. As I set out in Committee, it is right that the public and private sectors make every contribution they can to achieving our climate change targets. The Crown Estate should continue to be a national trailblazer in this regard.

The Crown Estate’s commitment to becoming a net zero carbon business by 2030, aligning with a 1.5 degree trajectory, and its commitment to prioritising activities that help enable a reduction in a national carbon emissions, such as building net-zero homes, transitioning its holdings to sustainable agricultural practices, and working in partnership with government to meet the national renewable energy targets, speaks to how seriously it is already committed to these goals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, it is quite late and we have run over our time, so I will be brief with this amendment. To be honest, my plan was never to call it to a vote. This is an amendment that I tabled at previous stages of the Bill. It calls on the commissioners to do two things: to establish a regional wealth fund and a skills training fund. I believe that both are important. That is why I have brought this amendment back today. As I said, I will speak to it very briefly.

On the regional wealth fund, we are going through one of the biggest energy transitions that this country has experienced since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. A lot of stuff needs to be built; a lot of change is coming. The Government need to take people with them on that journey. It is not for Whitehall and central government to do this to people. It is for this Government to do things with people, for people, and to take people with them on that journey. I say these things because they are important. We on these Benches want to see Labour succeed in these missions. If public support wanes, that will not happen.

I believe also in devolution; we believe in devolution on these Benches. We believe that local communities should benefit from the energy that they host, and from the infrastructure that sits in their communities. We believe very much in community energy as well. In legislation to come, we will have GB Energy. From these Benches, we will be pushing the Government strongly to go further on community energy. We think it is an important part of the puzzle that can be achieved within the GB Energy Bill.

I move on finally to skills and training. The green revolution is a revolution; it will change all our lives. It offers real opportunities, not just to decarbonise and meet our climate commitments but for Britain to grow new industries to be new world leaders and to train people to take on new jobs, the jobs of the future, which we need to grow our economy.

The Budget this week, for all the investment, had very little growth coming out of it. I personally worry that there was very little money in the Budget for skills and training. The year 2030 will be here in a blink of an eye. To meet our targets, we need people to be able to build all this stuff, to make this thing happen; otherwise, our targets will not happen and will not be met.

The Crown Estate sits at an important juncture between the big industries and the local communities. It is already doing a very good and imaginative job in this area. I simply call on the Government to do more: to work with the Crown Estate to help create these skills; to help support our local communities; and to help bring people with them and alongside them on this journey, so that we can all transition together. I beg to move.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will respond to Amendment 9 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the topic of local and community benefits. As I set out in Committee, the Government are committed to working closely with the Crown Estate to support our target of clean power by 2030 by collaborating to accelerate and derisk the sustainable delivery of technology such as offshore wind. As I noted in Committee, local communities already benefit from onshore and offshore developments in the form of the economic benefits that such developments bring, including job creation and increased business for local suppliers. Individual developers also contribute to local initiatives.

Over the longer term, local communities will also benefit as we accelerate our transition away from volatile fossil fuel markets to clean, homegrown power to boost Britain’s energy independence and security. The Crown Estate has also specifically designed the leasing process for the offshore wind leasing round 5 opportunity in the Celtic Sea in such a way that developers have to make commitments to deliver social and environmental value as part of the development of their new windfarms.

I turn to the second part of the amendment, on a skills training fund. As I have previously made clear, the Government of course support the spirit behind the amendment. We are committed to clean energy by 2030, accelerating to net zero and promoting biodiversity. To meet those ambitions, we need to make sure that our workforce has the knowledge and skills to succeed in the green economy, both now and in future.

As part of that effort, the Department for Education has set up Skills England, a new body that will tackle skills shortages and support sustained economic growth. The Government also introduced the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill in this House last week, which among other things will help to support the establishment of Skills England. As I highlighted in Committee, the Crown Estate is dedicated to supporting skills and training.

As I have said previously, the Crown Estate consults extensively with communities, charities, businesses and the Government to ensure that its skills initiatives are sensitive to market demands and emerging technologies to keep them relevant and effective. The Government consider it important that the Crown Estate retains that flexibility in how its skills initiatives are funded and delivered to ensure that it can contribute to skills training in the best possible way.

I hope these explanations have been helpful and I have provided some clarity on the points raised. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Russell, feels able to withdraw his amendment as a result.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am of course able to withdraw my amendment. I recognise the work that the Government are doing in these areas, but there is a need for more to be done. I do not think that working with the Crown Estate would impact other work; it would actually strengthen it. As I said, it sits in a unique juncture that would be particularly helpful in bringing industry together with communities to create local jobs and provide training. However, I note the work that the Government are doing and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Wales: Public Services

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have received from the Welsh Government concerning the Barnett Formula to fund public services in Wales.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in regular contact with his Welsh Government counterparts on funding, including the application of the Barnett formula. He spoke to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance on the morning of the Budget. As a result of the Barnett formula, the Welsh Government are receiving at least 20% more funding per person than equivalent UK government spending in England; that translates to over £4 billion more in 2025-26. The Budget delivered the largest real-terms funding settlement to the Welsh Government since devolution.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that Wales’s Finance Minister, Mark Drakeford, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer ahead of the Budget last week, asking for a review of the Barnett formula, specifically Wales’s comparability factor for transport funding, which has fallen from 80% in 2015 to 36% in 2021 and, following last week’s Budget, is now down to 33%? What recent discussions have the UK Government had with the Welsh Government regarding this? Can the Minister explain why the Welsh Labour Minister’s pleas for fairness in this matter have been ignored, and when will the Government do something about it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The Welsh Government settlement for 2025-26 is the largest in real terms of any since devolution. The Welsh Government are receiving £21 billion in 2025-26, including an additional £1.7 billion for the operation of the Barnett formula, with £1.5 billion resource spending and £250 million in capital. On the noble Lord’s second question, the Chief Secretary has a very good working relationship with the Welsh Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance and spoke to him on the morning of the Budget. The Chief Secretary also met the devolved government Finance Ministers in person on 3 October for the most recent finance Interministerial Standing Committee.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister in the Welsh Government said after the Budget:

“It is clear the Chancellor is listening to what Wales needs. I look forward to working with the UK Government on our other priorities”.


Can my noble friend confirm the strength of that renewed working relationship after what we have experienced for the past 14 years?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful for my noble friend’s question; it is gratifying to hear what she says. As I said, the Welsh Government settlement for 2025-26 is the largest in real terms since devolution, and Treasury Ministers are in regular and constant contact with their counterparts in Wales and the other devolved Administrations.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, the Budget delivered an additional £1.7 billion for Wales, and the Barnett formula means that Wales gets £1.20 of public funding for every pound spent in England. In light of this, can the Minister explain why the Labour-run Welsh NHS has waiting lists at record highs, with 22,000 people awaiting operations for over two years?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Barnett formula is a simple and efficient way of allocating finance and has stood the test of time. As the noble Lord says, it delivers a very good deal for Wales; the higher per-person funding broadly reflects the higher cost of delivering public services in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland compared with England.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, the Barnett formula has been in existence since the 1970s, when it was introduced as a temporary measure, and has since been discredited, even by Lord Barnett himself. Does the Minister agree that the formula needs to be reformed and replaced by a new, needs-based formula that meets the new and changing demands on the devolved nations in the 21st century?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No, I do not think I agree, and I am not sure that the formula that the noble Baroness sets out would deliver a better deal for Wales or any of the devolved Administrations. The Barnett formula has been revised recently and now includes a needs-based factor to ensure fair funding for Wales in the long term. The recent Budget delivered a very good deal for Wales: the Welsh Government settlement for 2025-26 is, as I have said, the largest in real terms of any Welsh Government settlement since devolution.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, might the Minister take the time to read the report of this House’s Select Committee on the Barnett Formula, which was delivered 15 years ago? It clearly showed that Wales loses out substantially under the Barnett formula and recommended that we move to a needs-based formula which would treat all parts of the United Kingdom fairly. The previous Government ignored that for their own reasons, but now is an opportunity for a Labour Government to help a Labour Administration in Wales.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I always take the noble Lord’s recommendations extremely seriously. I will certainly read the report he recommends, although it is interesting that it came out 15 years ago and for the subsequent 14 years his own party was in government.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the blunt fact remains that Wales is at or near the bottom of all the indices of deprivation within the United Kingdom, so will the Government look at this again, particularly in relation to Scotland, and try to align Wales’s position not just in comparison with England but with Scotland?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think the Government have any such plans, but the Budget delivered for all the devolved assemblies a record amount in settlements since devolution.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, the previous Conservative Government decided that, despite the fact that not a single yard of HS2 would be built in Wales, it would not get any Barnett consequential funding from that. That decision was criticised from the Labour Benches and deeply criticised by the Welsh Labour Government. How is it that the new Government can defend the decision of their Conservative predecessor?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I understand it, as heavy rail is a reserved matter and the UK Government are therefore responsible for heavy rail infrastructure across England and Wales, they spend money on this in Wales rather than funding the Welsh Government to do so through the Barnett formula. This approach applies to investment in HS2 and is consistent with the funding arrangements for all other policy areas that are reserved in Wales, as set out in the Statement of Funding Policy.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, further to the excellent question from my noble friend Lady Wilcox of Newport, can the Minister confirm, following the resetting of relations with the Scottish and Welsh Governments after the 14 disastrous years of the Tory Government, that through Brand Scotland and its Welsh equivalent, Scottish and Welsh heritage and products will be promoted throughout the world by this United Kingdom Labour Government?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As always, my noble friend says it far better than I could. I nearly always agree with him, and I do so on this point in particular.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Barnett formula was introduced for Scotland by a Labour Government in 1978; then it was applied to Wales and then to Northern Ireland. That is nearly 50 years ago. Surely it is time to look at a new mechanism that will reflect the modern devolved Administrations.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I give the noble Baroness the same answer that I have given already: I do not think the Government have any such plans. The Northern Ireland Executive settlement for 2025-26 is the largest in real terms of any Northern Ireland Executive settlement since devolution. The Northern Ireland Executive will receive £18.2 billion in 2025-26.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have stated that one of their priority aims is to grow the economy, yet their counterparts in Wales cancelled all road-building projects in 2023. How will this help growth in Wales and across the United Kingdom?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right that growth was one of the biggest failures of the previous Government over the past 14 years. It is absolutely our priority to do something about that. Obviously, one Budget cannot turn around 14 years, but we have already seen its measures increasing growth throughout the United Kingdom in the medium term.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Will the Minister answer the question, please? There is an urgent need for infra- structure investment in Wales. What meetings does the Minister propose to have with his Labour counterparts in Wales, to ensure that key projects—such as the third Menai bridge to Ynys Môn, and the Newport bypass—go ahead as quickly as possible?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not sure what question the noble Lord thinks I have not answered. He asked me specifically about investment projects. Of course, under his Government, we were the only country in the G7 to have investment levels below 20% of GDP. We have introduced planning reforms, which the previous Government could have introduced at any point in the past 14 years but did not. We are doing more on investment in a few months than the previous Government did in 14 years.

Budget: Taxes and Borrowing

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Budget raises taxes by £40 billion as we repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. Borrowing falls from 4.5% of GDP this year to 2.1% of GDP by the end of the forecast. The current budget moves into surplus from 2027-28, ensuring that we do not borrow to fund day-to-day spending.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, after delivering the biggest tax-raising Budget on record, the Chancellor rightly said at the weekend that she was wrong to rule out those tax rises ahead of the election. She also said that this Budget

“wiped the slate clean … set the spending envelope for the remainder of this Parliament”,

and that

“we don’t need to increase taxes further”.

Will the Minister repeat the Chancellor’s reassurances today and rule out any further tax rises in future Budgets, or should we not believe what the Chancellor has said this time round either?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We had to take some very difficult decisions in the Budget. They were the right decisions to clear up the mess that we inherited from the party opposite, to rebuild the NHS after years of neglect, to choose investment and not decline, and to keep our promises to working people. However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right and of course I agree with what the Chancellor said. This was a very significant Budget, because of the need to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services simultaneously. We have now wiped the slate clean, meaning we never have to do a Budget like this again. The noble Baroness asks about tax, and I point out that we have kept every single promise that we made on tax. Her Government, when she was a Treasury Minister, froze income tax thresholds, costing working people nearly £30 billion. We could have extended that but we chose not to.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the last Government’s plans would have taken tax as a share of GDP to 37.1%? Even then, they subsequently announced, but failed to account for, billions of additional public spending while promising unrealistic tax cuts. Does my noble friend agree that last week’s Budget measures were necessary to fill the last Government’s black hole and get this country back on track?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right in what he says. We faced a £22 billion black hole at the heart of our public finances, which we had to take steps to address. We also faced promises for compensation payments, which the previous Government had completely failed to put a single pound behind, and we had to repair public services simultaneously. In the process, though, we kept every single one of our manifesto commitments to restore stability, invest in our public services and protect working people.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Budget basically ignored social care providers, even though the sector is on its knees and taking the NHS with it. Will the Minister take seriously the need to exempt care providers from the increase in employers’ NICs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely correct: we had to take some very difficult decisions on tax. We have acknowledged that the impacts of those measures will be felt beyond business. We have chosen to compensate the public sector with £5.1 billion, to ensure that there is sufficient funding to support our vital public services, including the NHS. On social care, the Government have provided a significant funding top-up to local government, which can be used for pressures, including adult social care.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that the OBR has forecast that growth will peak at 2% in 2025 and thereafter fall back, after 2026, to around 1.5%. Does the Minister regard that as a satisfactory outcome of a Budget that imposed £40 million in taxes?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It was £40 billion in taxes. The noble Viscount is right that growth was one of the biggest failures of the previous Government, and we are absolutely determined to turn that around. We cannot undo the damage of the past 14 years in just one Budget. The OBR has said that growth is largely unchanged over the Parliament; that is in the context of a Budget with some very difficult decisions on tax to clear up the mess that we inherited. Of course, we need to go further and we need to go faster. That is why we are doing planning reform, pension reform and skills reform, all of which will boost growth and none of which is included in the OBR’s forecast. Let us remember that, under the previous Government, we were the only G7 country with investment below 20% of GDP. Our growth rate was dismal by OECD standards. Their Brexit deal imposed new trade barriers on business equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for manufacturing and 20% for services. They crashed the economy, with interest rates peaking at 5.25%.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Budget failed to address the financial difficulties faced by the higher education sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not agree with that.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lords opposite have some difficulty in understanding the arithmetic of coming through the black hole of £22 billion. Even if they cannot do the arithmetic, they can see that the prisons are full, waiting lists in the NHS are the highest they have ever been, schools are crumbling and there is a lack of police on the streets. It is their failure. Would the Minister agree that that is the core of the failure that this Budget is designed to correct? Is there not one important word missing in statements from the party opposite? That word is “sorry”.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I 100% agree with my noble friend. It is incredibly striking that, in everything we have heard from the party opposite, not once has it apologised for the record we inherited. One of the reasons this is a once in a generation Budget is that we have had to simultaneously repair public finances and rebuild public services. That is why it is such a historic Budget. My noble friend is absolutely right that what we have not heard from those in the party opposite is an alternative. Would they not have repaired the public finances? Would they not have prioritised working people? Would they now cut funding to the NHS and schools?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the Labour Government are taking money from pensioners this winter, taxing family farms on the death of a loved one, and hiking taxes on the hospice and care sectors, all while handing out inflation-busting pay rises to train drivers with no strings attached. Can the Minister confirm that this practice will stop and that there will be no more above average inflation pay rises without an agreement on productivity improvements and reform?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I can. We said exactly that in the Budget.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I have long said that government debt is overstated, and I am surprisingly supported by a man called Jacob Rees-Mogg. On 2 August 2022, he effectively said that the balance at that time of £875 billion of quantitative easing—the amount owed by the Government to the Government—should not be included in the national debt. Its exclusion would reduce public debt to 60% of GDP, meaning that the Government would have more headroom to borrow, invest and grow the economy. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the importance of investment to the economy, which is why we have set out an investment rule which enables exactly that. The Government’s number one commitment is to economic and fiscal stability, which is why we have put in place those robust fiscal rules. It is interesting to note that average borrowing over the next five years will be 2.6% of GDP compared to 5.6% of GDP over the previous 14 years.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister told the House that there were no promises broken in the Budget. The Secretary of State for Defra, which looks after agriculture, promised farmers that there would be no tax on inheritance. Why has he not resigned?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

On inheritance tax, currently the largest estates pay a lower effective tax rate than the smaller estates. I do not think that that can be right. Agricultural property relief is given on top of the normal inheritance tax thresholds. Individuals can pass up to £500,000 to a direct descendant, and then agricultural property relief would provide a further £1 million tax-free allowance. This means a couple can pass on up to £3 million tax free. Above that, there is a 50% discount on inheritance tax, so a rate of only 20% applies, and any liability can be paid in 10 yearly instalments. This seems to me to be pretty fair in the context of the decisions we have taken and in the context of what everyone else in society gets.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

This Budget provided only a limited increase in defence spending, under circumstances in which the Ukraine war is depleting British stocks and our Armed Forces are under very considerable strain. If the Government were to consider that they needed to increase defence spending further, and to raise tax for that, would they be confident that the Conservative Party would support that, or do they think they would oppose it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I cannot speak for those in the Conservative Party—and it does not seem that they can speak for themselves either right now. It is very unclear what they would do at all in response to this Budget. We have set out a path for defence spending that fully meets our commitments, and we will set out a path to 2.5% in due course.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out “another” and insert “a relevant”
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my second amendment to Clause 1.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 1, I shall speak also to government Amendment 4. The Government have tabled these amendments after considering the concerns raised in Grand Committee by the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes, Lady Bowles, and Lady Vere, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I am extremely grateful to all of them for all of the points they have raised.

Reflecting in particular on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the Government have decided to clarify in the Bill whose expenses can be covered by a recapitalisation payment from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her engagement on this matter since Grand Committee.

The Bill as introduced permitted a recapitalisation payment to cover the expenses that the Bank of England or another person has incurred, or might incur, in connection with the recapitalisation of the firm in resolution. These amendments replace that broad formulation with “relevant person”, then specify that “relevant person” means the Treasury, a bridge bank or an asset management vehicle. They further specify that “bridge bank” and “asset management vehicle” have the meanings given by Sections 12 and 12ZA of the Banking Act 2009 respectively.

In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated that she had no objection to the Treasury, the Bank of England and its entities having certain expenses covered by the new mechanism, but that this should be specified in the Bill. These amendments tabled by the Government seek to do just that; I hope that she and other noble Lords will be able to support them.

In Grand Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, also asked questions about the specific expenses that would be in scope under the terms of the Bill. On this point, I should be clear that the Government maintain the position set out in Grand Committee: it is important that the Bill is not overly prescriptive, allowing the Bank to respond flexibly when costs arise. I refer to the explanations given in Grand Committee, in the Government’s response to the consultation and in the draft updates to the code of practice of the types of expenses that will be expected to be covered. The Government maintain that it is prudent to ensure that there is broad provision to cover these potential additional costs. Ultimately, it should be borne in mind that the alternative may be for such costs to be met by the taxpayer.

By way of reassurance, I reiterate that, in determining whether to include certain ancillary expenses in its request for funding, the Bank of England is subject to the usual obligations under public law to act in a way that is reasonable and proportionate. In addition, the legislation does not allow the Bank of England or any other person to claim expenses that arise exclusively for preparing for a Bank insolvency. The draft updates to the code of practice also set out that the Government would expect any final report on the use of the mechanism to explain why certain expenses were considered reasonable and necessary.

I hope that the Government’s approach as set out in these amendments addresses the points raised by noble Lords in Grand Committee, and that noble Lords will feel able to accept them. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke in Committee. I draw attention to my interests as included on the register; in particular, I hold shares in a number of banks that could be affected by the contents of this Bill.

I thank the Minister for the comprehensive letters that he wrote to Members who took part in Committee—and, indeed, for the subsequent meeting that he organised. I also thank the Treasury for publishing the draft extra chapter for the code of practice, which has been very helpful to those of us trying to work through the Bill.

I certainly support the two amendments to which the Minister has just spoken, which go some way to limiting the wide power in new Section 214E(2), but I have some further questions for the Minister, building on the comments he has just made. These amendments constrain to whom payments can be made under that new subsection but they do not do anything to constrain the types of expenses that can be incurred. In Committee, I tried to explore what happens if litigation or regulatory actions arise in relation to issues that had occurred prior to the resolution action being taken but which do not emerge until a little later. We did not get very far, so I will spend just a couple of minutes on them here.

I am talking about material litigation or regulatory action. There could be shareholder litigation, which happened after RBS was bailed out by the Treasury. There could also be other kinds of issues that result in both regulatory action and civil litigation, as happened in relation to Libor, for example. Today’s hot issue is vehicle financing commissions, following the Court of Appeal’s decision recently, and no one knows how much it will cost.

Before this Bill, the working assumption was that smaller banks would be placed into the insolvency procedure and that, in that event, the kind of liabilities I am talking about would likely be extinguished as part of the insolvency because there would simply be insufficient money there to pay for them. However, once the recapitalisation power is used, it opens up the possibility that the Bank of England could use the power to raise capital in order to pay for litigation or regulatory costs that had arisen and were crystallising after the recapitalisation event.

The issue of litigation was raised by my noble friend Lord Moylan at Second Reading, and the Minister wrote to him on 21 August. The letter confirmed that litigation costs could well be covered through the use of the recapitalisation power. The Minister expressed this in terms of it being

“a judgement to be taken at the time, noting that the alternative could be to use public funds instead”.

From the perspective of the financial sector, which will be picking up the costs using the power—then doubtless passing them on to their customers—the alternative is using not public funds but the insolvency procedure. If we let the insolvency procedure take its course, at least nine times out of 10, those costs will not be met at all. So, that is the heart of the problem from the financial sector’s point of view.

I have not tabled an amendment on Report because it is very difficult to table one that would cover all eventualities. The redraft of the code of practice does not appear to deal with this issue either, whether in relation to expenses per se—in the terms of the new subsection we are discussing—or in relation to which liabilities the Bank should allow to go into the bridge bank. Today, I am seeking that the Government recognise that this is an issue and that it should be dealt with somehow as part of the code of practice.

I accept, as I have throughout, that there may be public interest reasons for avoiding the bank insolvency procedure, and for settling historical liabilities through the recapitalisation power, but the public interest test is a rather slippery concept and gives no real comfort to those who are expected to pick up the tab. I hope that the Minister will accept that this new power must not become a blank cheque to avoid bank insolvency and to pick up all kinds of costs that would otherwise fall by the wayside. I look forward to hearing what reassurances he can give.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the recent letters and documents he published in relation to the Bill. It was incredibly helpful to have them for the House to scrutinise the Bill properly. I am also grateful for these sensible amendments, which clarify the persons to whom the Bill’s measures apply as they relate to expenses. They are a bit technical, but they are improvements to the Bill and I am particularly pleased that the Minister has listened to concerns from across the House, including from my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Moylan.

I listened with great interest to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Noakes, and I urge the Minister to note what she said. I hope that some of these issues might be resolved in some way, either through the code of practice or by other means, as she seemed to me to make an awful lot of sense. However, on this basis, we support the Government’s amendments.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions today and, as I said previously, in Committee. As I said at the start of this debate, the purpose of the Government’s amendments is to clarify whose expenses may be covered under the mechanism in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will be able to accept the amendments, and I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for saying that they will.

I will respond to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. As she said, I wrote previously to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on this matter. I will briefly repeat some of the points I made to him. In relation to litigation being brought against the authorities themselves, the Bill allows the Bank of England to request that funds from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme cover expenses that have been incurred by it or by the Treasury, a bridge bank or an asset management vehicle in connection with the recapitalisation or the use of the stabilisation power. This may include litigation costs arising from the recapitalisation or use of the stabilisation power, such as from challenges to decisions made by the authorities.

Any decision to request Financial Services Compensation Scheme funds for these purposes would be a decision for the Bank of England to take, but I stress that, in making this decision, the Bank of England would consider all relevant factors, including the fact that the alternative may be to use public funds. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said on that point. A decision to use insolvency depends on whether the conditions for resolution action are not met. If the conditions for action are met, public funds would be the alternative for covering these costs instead of FSCS funds.

I hope that the points I have made demonstrate that the Government have engaged in good faith with the concerns raised by noble Lords and have sought to address them where it has proved possible to do so. These amendments put beyond doubt which parties’ expenses may be covered by the new mechanism, and I hope that noble Lords will support them.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord may be a little like me; I have always been sceptical that MREL would ever be used, because it would have such consequences in its own right. In the end, the resort is to public funds. I am afraid that every Government do not want to own up to that, but they know, in the back of their mind, that if we have an absolutely major crash, only one player will step up—I see the noble Lord is nodding—and that is the taxpayer. Any suggestion that the financial sector should go away and believe that it must consider its FSCS funds as available to rescue one of our major banks is, frankly, entirely inappropriate. That is why this amendment makes such sense.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords, and to my noble friend Lord Eatwell for the points that he made. The scope of firms in relation to which the mechanism can be applied has been a key issue in all our deliberations to date. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their engagement on this topic since Grand Committee.

As I stated then, the Government’s policy intention is for the mechanism provided by the Bill to be used primarily to support the resolution of smaller banks. We have reaffirmed that intention by including it in the updates to the special resolution regime code of practice, drafts of which have now been published and shared with noble Lords. The Bank of England must have regard to the code of practice when exercising its resolution powers, and this is set out in statute.

The Treasury is involved in the exercise of any resolution powers, either by being required to provide a response to consultation or by consent. Nevertheless, the Government maintain that it is right for the Bill to contain some flexibility for the Bank of England to be able to use the mechanism more broadly in some circumstances. That is because firm failures can be unpredictable and there could be circumstances in which it would be appropriate to use the mechanism on other firms. To repeat the example I gave in Grand Committee, this may be especially relevant in situations where a small bank has grown but is still in the process of reaching its end-state MREL requirements. Firms in this position would have at least some MREL resources to support recapitalisation, but the new mechanism could be used to meet any remaining shortfall if judged necessary. Without the proposed mechanism, there will be a potential gap in this scenario, creating risks to public funds and financial stability.

There is, of course, a counterargument here that the scope could instead be constrained, such that firms on the glide path to their full MREL requirement remain in scope of the mechanism but firms that have met their end-state MREL are excluded. The Government note that this is the desired intent of the noble Baroness’s amendment and it is an argument that we have considered carefully.

Ultimately, noting what has been set out in the code of practice and the strong expectation that the mechanism will be used on small banks, the Government’s view is that it is still right for the tool to have additional flexibility for unpredictable circumstances. To narrow the scope would constrain the Bank of England’s optionality, particularly where it might be necessary to supplement the resources bailed in with additional capital resources.

I note that these are considered unlikely outcomes, rather than a central case. However, given the uncertainty and unpredictability of a crisis scenario, the Government consider it important to avoid constraining that optionality.

None of the Bank of England’s other stabilisation powers are constrained for use on a specific type of in-scope firm and that the choice of stabilisation option used remains a decision for the Bank of England to take, having considered the resolution conditions and objectives. The Government believe that it is right for a similar approach to be taken in relation to the new mechanism. To be clear, the Government’s clear view remains that this mechanism should be intended for smaller banks and that the Bank of England should not assume the use of this mechanism for larger firms. In that regard, I agree with the noble Baroness on the crux of the issue she is raising. The Government simply do not wish to hard-wire that principle into the Bill.

Since we last debated this issue in Grand Committee, the Bank of England has published a consultation on proposed changes to the MREL regime. These proposals include the removal of the additional MREL requirement associated with the transactional accounts threshold for being set to the transfer strategy, given the availability of FSCS funds under the mechanism in the Bill as an alternative. There are currently only a limited number of firms with a transfer strategy, and firms with such a strategy would typically be expected to have a relatively small balance sheet. As such, the proposed change to the MREL regime is modest, consistent with the policy intention for the Bill mechanism to be intended primarily for smaller banks and it has the additional benefit of seeking to ensure that the MREL regime is proportionate for growing firms.

I reiterate the message delivered in the Written Ministerial Statement I made on the day the Bank of England’s consultation was published. As I have already said, the Government and the Bank of England agree that the Bank should not assume use of the new mechanism when setting a preferred resolution strategy of bail-in and corresponding MREL requirements for larger banks.

Recognising the level of interest rightly expressed in Peers being able to scrutinise the changes to the code of practice before the Bill begins its passage in the other place, the Government published updates of that document on 15 October. Notably, on the issue of scope, these updates to the code of practice explicitly state that the Bank of England will not assume use of the new mechanism when setting a preferred resolution strategy of bail-in and the corresponding MREL requirements for a large bank. Those updates to the code also made it clear that the Bank of England is still expected to abide by the so-called 5% and 8% rules in the case of larger banks.

I hope the explanations I have given have been helpful. Throughout the commitments I have given today and in Committee, in publishing draft updates to the code of practice, in the Written Ministerial Statement and in the engagement I have had with noble Lords, I have sought to reassure noble Lords on the question of scope, the primary intention for the mechanism in the Bill and the importance of maintaining flexibility for the Bank of England to act in the public interest. I recognise that I may not have been successful and that strong views remain, but I hope that the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment as a result.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly those who have spoken in favour of my amendment. This has been the subject of numerous discussions with the Minister. I listened carefully to what he had to say, and I still cannot quite understand why the Government will not accept this amendment and are unfortunately still using terms such as “It is the strong expectation that it would be used for X, Y, Z-type of bank”, or “It’s primarily for smaller banks”. That does not give me comfort, as we may be storing up significant challenges for the future. Therefore, I am not encouraged by the Minister’s response, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for bringing his amendment and for explaining it so well. We on these Benches are concerned that a statutory requirement to make assessment of potential clawbacks of executive pay may simply hinder the efficient use of the recapitalisation mechanism, which of course usually has to be done in a very timely fashion. Having considered his amendment, we feel that it would not be an improvement to the Bill and will not be supporting it.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Sikka replicates the one he tabled in Committee. I hope that my noble friend will therefore forgive me for repeating some of the points that I made when we discussed this amendment then.

Amendment 3 seeks to ensure that the Bank of England and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme consider whether there should be a clawback of executive pay and bonuses from a failed firm before using the new mechanism. Although the bank resolution regime does not set out powers allowing the Bank of England to claw back money from management, it does provide it with an extensive and proportionate set of powers to impose consequences on the management of a failed firm in resolution.

First, we expect that any existing shareholder equity would be cancelled or transferred when a firm is placed into resolution. This ensures that the firm’s owners bear losses, which is an important principle of the resolution regime. In many circumstances, this will affect directors and management who hold shares or other instruments of the failed firm.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

4: Clause 1, page 1, line 25, at end insert—
“(4A) In subsection (2)(b), “relevant person” means—(a) the Treasury,(b) a bridge bank, or(c) an asset management vehicle.(4B) In this section, “bridge bank” and “asset management vehicle” have the meanings given by sections 12 and 12ZA, respectively, of the Banking Act 2009.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my first amendment to Clause 1, clarifies the persons (in addition to the Bank of England) in respect of whose expenses a recapitalisation payment may be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today. I too add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for tabling his amendment. This group epitomises what is so good about your Lordships’ House: a lot of movement has happened to date on these issues from the Minister, and we are grateful for his engagement and for the fact that we have been able to get a little further down the road. However, like terriers with very sharp teeth, noble Lords are not quite willing to let it go just yet, and I too support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and of course those of my noble friend Lady Noakes, who has also done a fantastic job in ensuring that the issues she raised, and which most noble Lords agreed with in Committee, come to the fore. Helpfully, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has tabled Amendment 9, which plugs a big gap, and I hope the Minister will accept that and the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, this large group includes a number of the Government’s proposed amendments to the Bill. I begin by responding to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which is intended to ensure that there is transparency about the Bank’s use of the new mechanism. It does this by creating a requirement for the Bank to report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer within 28 days on certain matters where a recapitalisation payment is made, and for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to lay these reports in Parliament.

I assure noble Lords that the Government recognise absolutely the importance of transparency and accountability regarding the new mechanism and appreciate the strength of feeling in the House. The debates at Second Reading and in Committee were helpful and constructive and have informed the Government’s approach. The Government therefore agree that there should be an explicit requirement for the Bank of England to report to the Chancellor when it uses the new mechanism. To that end, government Amendment 8 means that the Bank of England must report to the Chancellor about the use of the mechanism in any circumstances where it is used.

The Government’s amendment outlines two elements to reporting. First, it would require the Bank of England to produce a final report at a time to be specified by the Treasury. This is intended to be a comprehensive account of the use of the new mechanism and to include an assessment of the relative costs to insolvency. Secondly, the amendment would require the Bank to provide an interim report within three months of using the mechanism in the event that a final report has not been provided within that time. This would ensure a prompt initial public justification for the use of the new mechanism, even if further details would follow later.

Government Amendment 14 would require the code of practice to include guidance on what should be included in the reports. Taking these points together, the Government’s approach has a broadly similar intent to that of the noble Lord’s amendment. However, there are some points of detail where the Government have taken a different approach in order to avoid unintended consequences. In particular, while recognising the importance of clear reporting arrangements, the Government believe that it is critical that the timing and content of any reports do not complicate a successful resolution.

I would highlight two challenges with the approach set out in Amendment 5 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. First, the Government believe that requiring an initial report as soon as 28 days after using the mechanism is likely to be too soon. As noble Lords know, the complexity of firm failures mean that they may not always be fully resolved within a short period of time. This is particularly the case when using the bridge bank tool, which is anticipated to be an interim step before an eventual sale. It is possible that a resolution process remains ongoing 28 days following a firm failure. It is therefore important that sufficient time is allowed so that the Bank can focus on its primary function of maintaining financial stability through managing the failure of the firm, before turning to the process of reporting. The Government therefore believe that providing an interim report within three months is a more proportionate approach to take, allowing the Bank more time to ensure that an interim report is as meaningful as possible while still ensuring that the Chancellor and Parliament are updated on use of the mechanism in short order.

This takes me to my second point, which is that disclosing certain information too early in the resolution process, especially information relating to the relative costs of different options such as insolvency, risks complicating a resolution because such information is either incomplete or highly sensitive. Regarding the noble Lord’s proposal to require an initial report to disclose certain costs, it is worth noting that when conducting the resolution conditions assessment, the Bank of England would make an assessment of the costs that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme may incur if the firm was placed into insolvency. However, by virtue of necessity, this would be only an initial assessment based on the information available at the time. It is therefore important that the Bank of England’s assessment of relative costs is reported on only once the resolution is fully complete. This will ensure that the Treasury, Parliament and industry are provided with a comprehensive and accurate account.

In addition, if the firm was in a bridge bank, as it may well be after just 28 days, the early disclosure of this interim financial information could complicate negotiations regarding a sale, especially if it was subsequently revised. It may also be market sensitive and increase speculation about the failed firm during a period of heightened sensitivity. Ultimately, therefore, the Government see risks in requiring the Bank to report too early and in too much detail during a highly unpredictable and sensitive situation. This is in part why the existing reporting provisions within the Banking Act in relation to resolution require reports as soon as reasonably practicable only after a year has passed.

The Government have sought to reconcile these different issues in our proposed amendment, while recognising the important substantive point of principle raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. First, the Government have proposed an interim report to be provided within three months. While it is possible that a resolution process may not have concluded by this point, as the FSCS is likely to levy firms within this timeframe, it seems reasonable to expect the Bank to provide a public justification of the decision to use the new mechanism by this point. I note that, alongside the notification requirement covered in government Amendment 10, which I will turn to shortly, this will ensure that the Treasury and Parliament have a prompt explanation of why resolution has been undertaken.

Secondly, the Government’s amendment means that the Bank of England must provide a separate final report, in the event that this has not already been provided within three months of using the mechanism. This final report is where the Bank would outline its assessment of the relative costs of different options. This reflects the points that I have already made, namely that the Government believe that the key reporting obligation should fall once the resolution process has concluded. This reduces the risk that disclosure frustrates that process and ensures that any report can be meaningful.

To support this approach, the Government have also tabled an amendment requiring guidance on the content of such reports to be included in the code of practice. This will ensure that there is clear public understanding of the key issues that any interim or final report is expected to cover. As I have noted, both interim and final reports would be expected to provide a justification for the use of the mechanism, and as set out in the current draft of the code of practice, the final report would need to set out an assessment of the costs if the firm had entered insolvency. The current draft updates to the code of practice also make clear that the Government expect to require the Bank of England to provide an explanation of why ancillary costs were considered reasonable and prudent.

I am grateful for the helpful engagement that I have had with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who has rightly emphasised the importance of the Bank of England providing a comparison of the expected and actual costs in its final reports. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that the Government intend to request that the Bank of England include this in final reports and will ensure that the final updates to the code of practice reflect this.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has also tabled Amendment 9 to require the Bank to produce a report three months after the resolved firm has been sold or otherwise closed. I understand that the intent of this similarly reflects a desire to ensure that the Bank of England is compelled to report after a resolution process has fully concluded and provide an assessment of how the expected impacts of its actions compared to the actual events that took place in resolution. The Government of course appreciate the importance of the Bank of England reporting promptly. Reflecting on the noble Lord’s proposal, the Government intend to further update the code of practice to make clear that, where feasible and appropriate, the Treasury would expect the Bank of England to report soon after the sale or closure of the resolved firm.

The Government believe that it would be preferable not to put this expectation into legislation. This reflects the point I have already made: that the Bank of England should be required to provide final reports with the more detailed assessments only at the appropriate moment. While the Government do expect, as I have said, the Bank of England to be in the position to report soon after the end of the resolution process, this cannot always be guaranteed. For example, in the case of selling a firm, it may not have been possible in all cases to complete the full post-resolution independent valuation process within three months of a sale. I believe the Government’s approach still captures the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment, which is to ensure that full reports following the conclusion of a resolution process are presented expediently, with some discretion for the Treasury to ensure that reports are still provided only at the right moment.

I hope that, taken together, the Government’s amendments address the noble Lord’s concerns on both the timing and the content of reports, while retaining the flexibility necessary to avoid unintended consequences. On the specific additional point raised by the noble Lord’s Amendment 9, I agree of course with his intention and I will be happy to update the code of practice to this effect. However, the Government believe it would be preferable not to put this into legislation. I would be happy to consider this matter further and discuss it with my honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, but I cannot give any firm additional commitments at this stage.

Turning to government Amendment 10, on notifying Parliament when using the power, I note that both the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the Government tabled similar amendments on the theme of parliamentary scrutiny. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue and for her engagement on the matter; I am especially grateful to her for agreeing to withdraw her original amendment. The Government’s amendment reflects the point made by noble Lords in Grand Committee concerning parliamentary notification and the creation of the Financial Services Regulation Committee in your Lordships’ House as a result of passing the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023.

Building on that innovation in parliamentary scrutiny and accountability, the Government’s amendment seeks to harness the role played by that committee, as well as the Treasury Select Committee. It requires the Bank of England to notify the chairs of both committees as soon as reasonably practicable after the new mechanism under the Bill has been used. It includes provisions to future-proof this requirement following use of the new mechanism, such that if the names or functions of those committees change, the requirement for the Bank of England to notify the relevant committees by which those functions are exercisable would still stand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has rightly argued that the Government’s amendment requires some tweaking, in particular to refer to the Financial Services Regulation Committee in the House of Lords by name. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this to my attention, and I note her amendments to the Government’s amendment—Amendments 11, 12 and 13—which attempt to address this point. I am of course very happy to agree to those amendments being made.

I hope that the Government’s approach across all the issues debated in this group demonstrates that the issue of accountability to Parliament is being taken seriously, ensuring that there will be transparency in use of the new mechanism. In particular, I hope that the Government’s amendments on the new reporting requirements address the noble Lord’s concerns on both the timing and content of the reports, while retaining the flexibility necessary to avoid unintended consequences. On the basis of these points, I hope noble Lords will be able to support both the Government’s amendments and those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and I respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and the Minister for his constructive approach to it. I take on board everything he said about Amendment 5, which is why, as I have already indicated, I do not intend to push it to a vote.

However, I take issue with the Minister’s thinking it is appropriate that the relative costs of the recapitalisation process versus the insolvency process are looked at only after the event, at the very end of the process. It is quite important that we see why the Bank made decision it made at the time it made it, and that it has not reverse-engineered the results and facts to justify what it did. So I am not totally sure that I fully agree with the Minister on that point. Be that as it may, I am not going to push Amendment 5, because Amendment 8, along with the code of practice, covers most of what is needed.

However, as to Amendment 9, I am afraid that I did not hear anything particularly new there. The Minister has confirmed that his intention is that the reporting should cover the final result of the resolution process, which, as I say, could be a number of years later—but that is not what government amendment 8 says. The amendment specifically refers to

“the exercise of the power to”

recapitalise and

“the stabilisation power and stabilisation option to which”

it

“relates”.

It does not refer anywhere to what happens at the end. It is all very well saying that it might go in the code of practice and that there is an expectation that this will happen, but this is a really important issue.

We must know what actually happened, to be able to see how that compares with what we were told was going to happen, and to be able to learn the lessons arising from that. With the best will in the world, it may not be the Minister who is at the Treasury whenever this is used. I absolutely believe and trust that he would do exactly the right thing, but whoever comes next might not. It is important that this is in the Bill.

I am afraid that I intend to divide the House when the time comes, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes.

On Amendment 7, I will not reiterate the points raised. I deeply appreciated the explanation by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, as to how she got to her supportive position. From our perspective, we feel that Amendments 7 is a reasonable objective that would ensure the Bank facilitates the international competitiveness of the UK economy and economic growth in the medium term—that is very clear. It also has the ability to look at the level of risk within the banking sector over the medium term. Given the Government’s stated objective of focusing on economic growth, I am very interested to hear the Minister’s view on these amendments.

Amendment 16 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, which I have signed, seeks to minimise the net costs recouped from the banking sector via this mechanism. Again, it is a very sensibly drafted amendment that would improve the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by noting that the Government fully understand the concerns raised by noble Lords regarding the objectives the Bank of England should adhere to when taking resolution action.

Amendments 6 and 7 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, seek to ensure that the Bank of England considers growth and competitiveness when using the new mechanism, by introducing a new objective that the Bank of England would need to consider. In the case of Amendment 6 this would be alongside the existing special resolution objectives, while in the case of Amendment 7 it would be a secondary objective. This objective would be to facilitate the competitiveness and growth of the UK economy, subject to aligning with relevant international standards.

I appreciate wholly the intent of the noble Baroness’s amendments. The Government have reflected carefully on this issue in the weeks running up to Report. Growth and competitiveness are, of course, fundamental priorities for this Government. The Government are resisting these amendments because, while we understand and appreciate their intent, they would pose challenges within the specific context of this Bill. I intend to make three main points—about the wider context of the Bill; the particular challenges a new objective may pose in the case of the new mechanism; and the steps the Government are taking to ensure that costs to industry are properly considered.

First, I note that the aim of the Bill is to enhance the resolution regime, but in a way that avoids making more fundamental changes to the regime or to the way in which the Bank of England exercises its resolution powers. This reflects a key conclusion from the Government’s consultation, which is that the regime already broadly works well. This was demonstrated by the successful resolution of Silicon Valley Bank UK.

As noble Lords are aware, the resolution regime has been developed over a number of years to align with international best practice. The relevant authorities have invested considerable time and energy in contingency planning to use the existing powers within their existing framework of objectives. As it stands, the regime therefore reflects a carefully calibrated judgment about the key priorities that should be considered in what is an emergency, firm-specific failure scenario.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

8: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“ReportingIn the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, after section 214E (as inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—“214EA Recapitalisation payment: report(1) This section applies where the Bank of England requires the scheme manager to make a recapitalisation payment under section 214E.(2) The Bank must report to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about—(a) the exercise of the power to require a recapitalisation payment to be made, and(b) the stabilisation power and the stabilisation option to which the payment relates.(3) The report (“the final report”) must—(a) comply with such requirements as to content, and(b) be provided within such period or at such time,as the Treasury may specify.(4) The Bank must provide an interim report if—(a) the period specified under subsection (3)(b)is a period of more than 3 months beginning with the day on which the Bank requires the recapitalisation payment in question (“the first 3 months”), or the time specified under subsection (3)(b)is after the first 3 months, and(b) the Bank does not provide the final report within the first 3 months.(5) An interim report must—(a) comply with such requirements as to content as the Treasury may specify, and(b) be provided within the first 3 months.(6) Subject to subsection (7), the Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay each report, and any interim report, before Parliament.(7) The Chancellor of the Exchequer may omit from the report, and any interim report, any information which the Chancellor of the Exchequer considers it would not be in the public interest to publish.”” Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause imposes a reporting requirement on the Bank of England when it requires a recapitalisation payment to be made.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendment 9 (to Amendment 8)

Tabled by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

10: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Notification to Parliamentary CommitteesIn the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, after section 214EA (as inserted by section (Reporting) of this Act) insert—214EBNotification to Parliamentary Committees(1)Where the Bank of England requires the scheme manager to make a recapitalisation payment under section 214E, the Bank must, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify in writing the chair of each relevant Parliamentary Committee that it has done so.(2)The relevant Parliamentary Committees are—(a)the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons, and(b)the Committee of the House of Lords which—(i)is charged with responsibility by that House for the purposes of this section, and(ii)has notified the Bank that it is a relevant Parliamentary Committee for those purposes.(3)The reference to the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons—(a)if the name of that committee is changed, is to be treated as a reference to that committee by its new name, and(b)if the functions of that committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different committee, is to be treated as a reference to the committee by which those functions are exercisable.(4)Any question arising under subsection (3) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”Any question arising under subsection (3) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.””Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Bank of England to notify relevant Parliamentary Committees when it requires a recapitalisation payment to be made.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I beg to move.

Amendments 11 to 13 (to Amendment 10)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

14: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Code of practiceIn the Banking Act 2009, in section 5 (code of practice), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The code must include guidance on the contents of a report, and of any interim report, under section 214EA of that Act (recapitalisation payment: report).””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause require the Treasury to include, in a code of practice under section 5 of the Banking Act 2009, provision relating to the content of reports about recapitalisation payments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in his work in this area. Over the course of our scrutiny of the Bill, we have had some happy and quite nerdy discussions around this amendment. It is clear to me that it is a complicated situation. There is clearly an issue to be solved, but unfortunately the issue may not be exactly the same for each case of resolution that one might be addressing, so it needs further thought.

I am pleased that we will not be voting on this, but I impress upon the Minister that if there is something we can do in this area, whether that be in the code of practice or by other mechanisms, it is important. It is unconscionable to me that, because a particular entity goes down the route of resolution rather than insolvency, certain creditors could be significantly better off. That cannot happen and we must do something about it.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, seeks to give the Financial Services Compensation Scheme rights with respect to the recapitalisation payment, in the event that the firm in resolution is subsequently placed into insolvency or wound up, by then requiring it to be treated as a debt. It also seeks to grant the Financial Services Compensation Scheme super-preferred status in the creditor hierarchy with respect to that debt, enabling it to recover that claim in an insolvency process before other unsecured creditors, uncovered depositors and shareholders.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the constructive engagement that I have had with him on this matter prior to this debate, and I am especially grateful for his time and expertise on it. I assure him that my officials and I have spent considerable time considering the concerns that he raises, and I shall set out the Government’s position.

The Government’s concern about the amendment is that it could frustrate the primary intention of the Bill to achieve recapitalisation in a way that restores financial stability and, as such, could potentially result in the resolution failing. The Government’s view is that the amendment could create uncertainty as to how such a payment would be perceived by the market when a firm was operating, rather than only in the unlikely circumstance of the firm winding up.

The effect of the amendment would be to create a shadow claim on the recapitalisation. Potential purchasers, investors and unsecured lenders to the firm would be aware that in the event of insolvency a new debt would materialise above them in the creditor hierarchy. Indeed, the shadow claim would follow the firm in perpetuity for as long as it was a going concern, even after the resolution was complete and the firm had been sold to a buyer.

It would also follow the firm even where the original shareholders and creditors were no longer involved with the business, creating a series of risks. That raises a number of potential issues. First, it could inhibit the sale of the firm in resolution. While the insolvency position would not be a primary consideration for potential buyers, it would naturally be part of the potential purchaser’s due diligence to understand the risk to its investment in a subsequent failure. That risk may be substantially greater with the existence of this debt, which may in turn impact potential interest in purchasing the firm and any purchase price.

Secondly, both while the firm was in the bridge bank and once it had been sold, current and potential future creditors and investors in the firm could be deterred from investing in and engaging with the firm for similar reasons. That would frustrate a key goal of the resolution, which is to maintain continuity. For example, uncovered depositors would have an additional incentive to withdraw deposits as they may perceive a potential risk to the seniority of their claim in insolvency. Thirdly, it could potentially undermine restoring market confidence in the resolved firm.

As a result of the issues that I have outlined, the amendment could make it more expensive to run the firm, putting it at a competitive disadvantage. It may perpetuate the circumstances that the resolution is intended to address; namely, uncertainty around how and to whom potential future losses would fall. It may also make it difficult to secure the agreement of directors, who may not be comfortable running a firm under such a shadow while it was in a bridge bank.

In addition, existing legislation means that instruments may currently be classified only as common equity tier 1, the highest form of capital, if they are not subject to any arrangement, contractual or otherwise, that enhances the seniority of claims in insolvency or liquidation. The noble Lord’s amendment would mean that a capital injection arising from a recapitalisation payment under the Bill may not count as the highest form of capital, as it creates a seniorised claim for the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in the event of a subsequent insolvency. That brings into doubt whether it would have the desired effect of restoring market confidence in the firm.

Overall, the effect of granting the Financial Services Compensation Scheme a super-preferred claim over the recapitalisation payment, even if only at the point of insolvency, would be to increase the risk of the resolution not achieving its objectives. Therefore, while the Government absolutely understand the noble Lord’s concerns, we have concluded, for the reasons I have outlined, that the amendment may end up doing more harm than good.

I appreciate that this is a matter that the noble Lord feels extremely strongly about, but I hope this explanation has provided some clarity over the risks attached to the amendment and that as a result he feels able to withdraw it.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank every noble Lord who has taken part in this short debate. It is a fairly nerdy and technical subject, and the Minister has just described very well why it is a complicated situation. I am sorry that he was unable to say that the Government would keep it under review —to keep an eye on the situation—because there is a problem. This process could lead to creditors being preferred unreasonably over the FSCS money in some circumstances, and that is not desirable. It comes back to some of the moral hazard points that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, made earlier as well, albeit in a different context, so I am sorry that the Minister was unable to say anything on that front.

I agree with the Minister that it is complicated and that there probably are unintended consequences to my amendment. I again urge him to keep this under review and to look at whether anything might be done on it under the code of conduct. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Employment: Tax Policy

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I agreed with some of what he had to say, which is a bonus for me today, so I am enormously grateful for his contribution. I am also grateful to my friend Lord Leigh for tabling this debate. Who knew that it was going to be so well timed? Like many others, I too will fall into the trap of focusing on the Budget because it is top of mind at the moment, and not in a good way.

I have to say, from listening to my noble friend Lord Leigh’s opening remarks, that he brings extraordinary expertise of commerce and the private sector, as of course do many other speakers in this short debate today, notably my noble friend Lord Petitgas and of course the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. Unfortunately, that is more than can be said of the current Chancellor and indeed the wider Cabinet—I think some analysis has been done, and private sector experience is somewhat lacking—so I hope that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that some of the Labour Peers are promoted to positions of greatness such that they can share their private sector expertise, is taken up. It is definitely the case that there is private sector expertise on the Labour Benches; it just does not seem to have got up to the top levels.

Yesterday the new Labour Government raised the tax burden to the highest level in our country’s history. Despite making an outright promise not to raise taxes on people, they raised taxes on working people. In hiking the employers’ national insurance contributions—NICs for short—to raise a headline figure of £25 billion, the Government have committed a straightforward breach, according to the IFS, of their manifesto. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of the now Prime Minister and Chancellor promising before the election not to hike taxes. Can the Minister give the Committee any insight into how the discussions went when drafting the section of the manifesto about no increase in taxes on working people? Was it a cunning sleight of hand that left the words “national insurance contributions” unencumbered by the “employees’” qualifier, or was it just incompetence?

The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made an excellent contribution. I appreciate his comments about the last Government. As a Conservative, I can say that no one wants to see taxes go up—it is just not in our DNA.

I remember many debates when I was a Treasury Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, in opposition, would slam me for tax rises. I was going to come up with various quotes today about the number of times he has previously slammed me for tax rises, but I thought that would be really cruel.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

Could the noble Baroness not be bothered to do so?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

No; my speech is already six minutes long, but I will do it next time.

Of course, at that time, we were dealing with the pandemic and its fallout, and the fallout from the energy price support we had given. Therefore, we had a very firm footing on which to raise taxes.

The Minister will try to bring out his fictitious black hole; I sincerely hope that he will not, given what the OBR has now said about it—I am starting to feel a bit embarrassed for him. Plainly and simply, promises have been broken, and we need to now think about what we can do to ensure growth in the private sector. The views of the private sector on this are now well known. Can the Minister share with me whether anyone in the private sector thinks the rise in employer NI is a good idea?

I want also to look at what the OBR has to say in its economic and fiscal outlook. My noble friend Lord Elliott is right. It is like beer, which is going down by 1p in a pint—that is huge, is it not?—and wine: the more you tax it, the less you get. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, was very helpful in this regard. If you tax the film and creative industries less, they grow more. Unfortunately, we have seen taxes go up, so—surprise, surprise—the labour supply is forecast to come down by 0.2%. I do not know whether the Minister is happy with this, but I wonder what the Government will do to mitigate for those people who would otherwise have been in a good job.

But it is worse than that. Real earnings will then stall in 2026 and 2027, as firms rebuild their margins and pass on the costs of higher employer NICs. Real wages are not expected to resume growing in line with productivity until beyond the forecast horizon. What interventions will the Minister set out in terms of increasing productivity such that we can get some sort of real wage growth going?

It is not just the OBR that has an issue here; it is also HMRC, which reflects that 940,000 employers will lose an average of £800 per employee. This is not good news for employment, and it is not good news for growth. Labour’s No. 1 mission is to secure the highest sustained growth in the G7. I am an optimist, but this Budget literally has the forecasts for growth coming down. I cannot see how that is compatible with Labour’s No. 1 mission.

The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, asked for alternatives. I will give him two that are still on the table. First, if we increased productivity to pre-pandemic levels, we would get £20 billion a year. Secondly, reforms to adult welfare would save £34 billion a year. That was our plan; we did have a plan but, unfortunately, we were not able to put it in place.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, on securing this debate and on his opening speech. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

The manifesto this Government were elected on promised to invest in our public services and prioritise working people. Keeping those promises was at the core of yesterday’s Budget. Many noble Lords focused today on specific tax decisions made in the Budget, and the impact and analysis of those decisions as set out by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. It may be helpful to noble Lords if I begin by explaining the background to the decisions we made.

First, in July, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, kindly mentioned, the Chancellor exposed a £22 billion black hole at the heart of the previous Government’s plans—a series of promises they made but had no money to deliver. This Government yesterday published a line-by-line breakdown of that £22 billion black hole, and the OBR published its own review of the circumstances surrounding the Spring Budget forecast.

For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, the OBR’s report says that the previous Government “did not provide” them “with all the information” that was available and that, had the OBR known about these

“undisclosed … pressures that have since come to light”,

its spring forecast would have been “materially different”.

Secondly, the country inherited not just broken public finances but broken public services too, with NHS waiting lists at record levels, schools literally crumbling, and rivers filled with waste. Yet, since 2021, there had been no spending review—no detailed plans for departmental spending set out beyond this year.

Thirdly, the previous Government had failed to budget for costs which they knew would materialise, including funding for compensation schemes for the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal.

Put together, these three things—the black hole in our public finances, the compensation payments which they did not fund and their failure to assess the scale of the challenges facing our public services—meant that, in order to meet our first fiscal rule, yesterday’s Budget needed to raise taxes by £40 billion.

So, we had in yesterday’s Budget some very difficult decisions to take in order to rebuild our public finances and our public services. In doing so, we made an important choice: to keep every single commitment we made on tax in our manifesto. We did not raise taxes on working people—their income tax, their national insurance or VAT—and we were able to go further, by not increasing fuel duty and by not extending the last Government’s freeze of income tax thresholds, which hit working people so hard, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned.

Of course, in the circumstances I describe, any responsible Chancellor would need to take difficult decisions to raise the revenue required to fund our public services and to repair our public finances. So, in yesterday’s Budget, the Chancellor announced an increase in employers’ national insurance contributions by 1.2 percentage points to 15% from April, and that the secondary threshold would be reduced from £9,100 per year to £5,000.

We know that it is particularly important to protect our smallest companies, so we also increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, meaning that 865,000 employers will not pay any national insurance at all next year, and over 1 million will pay the same or less than they did previously. In the Budget, we also increased the lower rate of capital gains tax from 10% to 18%, and the higher rate from 20% to 24%, which means that the UK will continue to have the lowest capital gains tax rate of any European G7 country.

Alongside these changes to the headline rates of capital gains tax, we are also maintaining the lifetime limit for business asset disposal relief at £1 million, to encourage entrepreneurs to invest in their businesses. Business asset disposal relief will remain at 10% this year before rising to 14% in April and 18% from 2026-27, maintaining a significant gap compared with the higher rate of capital gains tax.

We also published a Corporate Tax Roadmap, which confirms our commitment to cap the rate of corporation tax at 25%—the lowest in the G7—for the duration of this Parliament, while maintaining full expensing and the £1 million annual investment allowance and keeping the current rates for research and development reliefs to drive innovation.

The Budget also set out additional tax measures, including reforming inheritance tax and measures on tobacco duty, vehicle excise duty, air passenger duty and alcohol duty.

We also delivered on our other commitments, which some noble Lords addressed during this debate: to abolish the non-dom tax regime and replace it with a new residence-based scheme; a new approach to the way carried interest is taxed; reforms to the stamp duty land surcharge tax for second homes, and to the energy profits levy; and we introduced VAT on private school fees. In total, these changes—alongside our measures to tackle tax avoidance—will raise over £9 billion to support our public services and restore our public finances.

We are asking businesses to contribute more, and the Chancellor acknowledged in her speech that the impacts of this measure will be felt beyond businesses, too, as the OBR has set out and as noble Lords raised in today’s debate. In addition, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton observed, the employment rate will increase by 1.2 million over the forecast. These are, however, very difficult choices, and not ones that the Chancellor took lightly. But, in the circumstances we inherited, we believe they are the right choices to make.

Several noble Lords mentioned growth, and it was of course welcome that the OBR was so clear: this Budget will permanently increase the supply capacity of the economy, boosting long-term growth. However, there is of course much more to do.

It is important that we also consider in this debate the purpose of the difficult decisions we have taken on tax, which enable us not just to repair the public finances but to begin to rebuild our public services. It is worth noting that, in this debate, some noble Lords spoke in favour of some of this investment, but without supporting the taxation necessary to fund it. Because of the difficult decisions the Chancellor has taken on tax, day-to-day spending from 2024-25 onwards will grow by 1.5% in real terms, while total departmental spending, including capital spending, will grow by 1.7% in real terms.

In this, the first phase of the spending review, the Chancellor has prioritised day-to-day funding to deliver on our manifesto commitments. We will increase the core schools budget by £2.3 billion next year to support our pledge to hire thousands more teachers into key subjects; to triple investment in breakfast clubs to put them into thousands of schools; and to provide an additional £300 million to our further education colleges, while taking steps to transform the apprenticeship levy into a more flexible growth and skills levy.

We will deliver a real-terms funding increase for local government next year, including £1.3 billion of additional grant funding to deliver essential services and £200 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. We are also providing funding to support public services and drive growth across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with the largest real-terms funding settlement since devolution delivering an additional £3.4 billion to the Scottish Government, £1.7 billion to the Welsh Government and £1.5 billion to the Northern Ireland Executive in 2025-26.

Finally, we are fixing the NHS after years of neglect. Because of the difficult decisions the Chancellor has taken on tax, which we are debating today, and because of our commitment to a new investment rule, yesterday’s Budget announced that we are now able to provide a £22.6 billion increase in the NHS budget over two years. That is the largest real-terms growth in NHS spending outside of Covid years since 2010. Many NHS buildings were left by the previous Government in a state of disrepair, so we will provide £1 billion of health capital investment next year to address the backlog of repairs and upgrades across the NHS estate. To increase capacity for tens of thousands more procedures next year, we are providing a further £1.5 billion for new beds in hospitals across the country and more than 1 million additional diagnostic tests, as well as new surgical hubs and diagnostic centres, so that the people waiting for treatment can get it as quickly as possible. Because of this record injection of funding, the thousands of additional beds that we will secure and the reforms that we are delivering in our NHS, we can now begin to bring waiting lists down more quickly and move towards our target of an 18-week waiting time by delivering our manifesto commitment for 40,000 extra elective appointments a week.

The difficult decisions on tax that we made in yesterday’s Budget, which have been debated here today, were made for a purpose. We made choices to rebuild the public finances and our public services, to invest in the national interest and to keep our manifesto commitment to prioritising working people. It is perfectly possible to make different choices, of course, but noble Lords should keep in mind that, at the last election, the country voted for change. They did not reject the previous Government so overwhelmingly because they thought the choices they had made were the right ones; they gave this Government a mandate to fix the foundations of our economy and to deliver the change they voted for.

As the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, observed, we did not hear very much about any credible alternative during this debate. We believe that any responsible Chancellor would have had to take action in the circumstances we faced, but, of course, it was possible to choose not to act. Some noble Lords may think that it would have been better to choose the path of irresponsibility and ignore the problems in the public finances altogether. If that is their choice, they should say so. I believe that the choices the Chancellor set out at the Budget are the right choices for our country, to repair our public finances, to protect working people, to fix our NHS and to rebuild Britain.

Other choices could have been made, of course, but let me be clear: not making the choices that we have made would make it impossible to protect working people; not funding public services in the way that we have would mean cuts to schools and hospitals; not supporting our investment rule would mean delaying or cancelling thousands of projects that drive growth across our country. We have made our choices—the only responsible choices—to protect working people, to fix the foundations of our economy and to invest in Britain’s future.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, if I may say so—he has a minute left—I am concerned that he is answering the wrong exam question, as he did not seem to mention employment. However, he did mention the NHS and the £22 billion for it. How much of that sum is the RDEL compensation for the public sector, which will not have to pay employers NI?

Also, I would like the Minister to write, if possible, to cover the question from my noble friend Lord Petitgas about any sector-by-sector analysis of the impact of this tax policy on employment.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very happy to write. I did mention employment: I set out that there would be an increase of 1.2 million over the course of the forecast. That is the question I was asked.

Committee adjourned at 4.55 pm.

Fiscal Rules

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches have long called for vital investment into infrastructure, not least to fix our crumbling hospitals and schools, to tackle the failings and gaps in our transport system, and to deliver the affordable housing needed by so many. Infrastructure investment, including private investment, must be scaled up to drive sustainable economic growth across the nation, including the green energy revolution. But fiscal responsibility remains crucial.

These Benches have argued before for the use of the public sector net fiscal liabilities as the appropriate measure to sit behind a borrowing rule, because it allows productive investment to be considered separately from day-to-day spending. I tried without success to persuade the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, to look more closely at this issue during the Conservative Government.

Changing the measure also means reshaping the borrowing rule and the guard-rails to make them appropriate to that new measure. This Statement so far offers only the vaguest language, so I hope very much that we will hear a proper discussion of the rules and the guard-rails tomorrow in the Budget. Will the draft charter for budget responsibility, which I understand should contain much of that, be among tomorrow’s documents?

There also seem to be a number of referees to oversee the rule and its implications, from the OBR to the national infrastructure and service transformation authority, an office for value for money and the NAO. How does this fit together and what oversight will be before Parliament?

We cannot have a repeat of the Truss mini-Budget, which nearly wrecked the public finances with £40 billion in unfunded tax cuts. Does the Minister agree that the Budget must be credible to the markets, the interest burden on our public finances must be tackled and, at the same time, we must make good our infrastructure deficit—investing to fix hospitals and schools but also driving economic growth? None of it is easy, but all of it is necessary.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere of Norbiton and Lady Kramer, for their comments and questions.

Let me start by setting out the context in which our fiscal rules will be set. The Budget that my right honourable friend the Chancellor will present tomorrow will be driven by this Government’s number one mission: to deliver sustainable growth after a decade and a half of stagnation. That growth can only be built on stable foundations, so the first and most important task in the Budget will be to turn the page on 14 years of instability and uncertainty, which have deterred investment and undermined business confidence.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about the importance of fiscal responsibility—that is why the fiscal rules are so important. They will set the basis for stable fiscal policy, prudent management of day-to-day spending and responsible investment for growth. That commitment to responsibility and stability requires us to address in tomorrow’s Budget three challenges.

First, there is the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere, helpfully reminded the House about, which we inherited from the previous Government, and the vast majority of which will persist into future years. Secondly, the compensation payments for those who have suffered because of the infected blood and Horizon scandals were announced by the previous Government but never budgeted for. Thirdly, the state of the UK’s public services means that they cannot survive a return to the austerity that has done so much damage over the past 14 years, including by holding back growth.

The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, mentioned our manifesto commitments. Our manifesto set out in our fiscal rules that

“the current budget must move into balance, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues and debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast”.

Our manifesto also said:

“These rules allow for prudent investment in our economy. This represents a clear break from the Conservatives who have created an incentive to cut investment; a short-term approach that ignores the importance of growing the economy”.


To deliver on these manifesto commitments, the Government’s fiscal rules will do two things. First, and most importantly, the stability rule will mean that day-to-day spending will be matched by revenues, as committed to in our manifesto. We will meet this rule within this Parliament. Given the state of the public finances and the need to invest in our public services, this rule will bite hardest. Alongside tough decisions on spending and welfare, the Chancellor has been clear that this means that taxes will need to rise in tomorrow’s Budget to ensure that this rule is met.

The Government’s second fiscal rule—the investment rule—will deliver on our manifesto commitment to get debt falling as a proportion of our economy. That will make space for the necessary increases in investment in the fabric of our nation, and it will ensure that we do not see the falls in public sector investment that were planned under the previous Government. The plans that we inherited would have seen public sector investment decline to the lowest level in over 10 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, seemed to confirm that that would still be the Conservatives’ approach. That cannot be right. If we continue on this path of decline, we will continue to miss out on the opportunities of the future, and other countries will continue to seize them. To rebuild our country, we must increase investment, in partnership with the private sector. The UK lags behind every other G7 country on business investment as a share of our economy, and the IMF has been clear that weak investment and low productivity are holding back growth.

We must create the conditions for the private sector to invest, by stabilising our economy and introducing reforms to planning and skills. At the recent International Investment Summit, we saw £63 billion of new private sector investment committed to our economy, creating nearly 38,000 new jobs. The Government must invest alongside business, through expert bodies like the new national wealth fund, multiplying the impact of public money. However, there is also a significant role for public investment. For too long, we have seen Conservative Chancellors cut public investment and raid capital budgets to plug gaps in day-to-day spending. The result of that approach is clear for all to see: hospitals without the equipment they need, our schools literally crumbling, sewage in our rivers and growth held back. We cannot continue on this path of decline. We need to invest more to grow our economy and seize the huge opportunities that exist in digital, tech, life sciences and clean energy. To do this—to grow our economy, free up more money, invest in capital and meet our manifesto commitment to remove the incentive to cut investment—the Chancellor has said that, in tomorrow’s Budget, we will change the Government’s measure of debt.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, it is of course important that every pound of taxpayers’ money that is spent gets value for money and delivers returns for the taxpayer when we invest in capital projects. So we will put in place guard-rails with the National Audit Office and the Office for Budget Responsibility, enabling them to validate the investments we are making to ensure that we deliver value for money, and give markets confidence that there are rules around the investments we can make as a country.

The Chancellor will set out the Government’s full fiscal plan, including the precise details of our fiscal rules, in tomorrow’s Budget, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast produced by the OBR—and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, helpfully reminded us that the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget failed to commission one. In our Budget, we will turn the page on the past 14 years, fix the foundations of our economy and restore economic stability to our country. We will invest to rebuild Britain and begin a decade of national renewal.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, we used to have a rule of Budget purdah in this country for the very good reason that it prevented market speculation in the run-up to the House of Commons hearing the Budget details. Every Chancellor who followed me in office has steadily weakened that and, this year, we have had three months of absolutely absurd semi-debate, with hints, leaks and suggestions from the Government being debated. It began by ruling out any question of raising the four most basic taxes that everybody previously turned to when they needed more revenue, because they share the burden more fairly across the country. This has now accumulated with the Prime Minister deciding, two days before the Budget, that he will take for himself a popular announcement—to some of his Cabinet colleagues and Back-Benchers—that he will ease the fiscal rules on which the Budget is based.

Fortunately, this nonsense has so far had only a slightly dampening effect on investors and markets, but it has had an undoubtedly dampening effect on business activity for the last two or three months. Will the Minister ask his colleagues to consider returning to Budget purdah in future years? If this circus is now to be the pattern for every Budget throughout this Parliament, then, sooner or later, we are going to have market speculation and a financial crisis of the kind that followed Liz Truss’s Budget.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is far more experienced in these matters than me, and I have the greatest respect for him. He mentioned three types of activity. The first one he mentioned was the manifesto commitments we gave: he mentioned the major taxes and he is absolutely right. In our manifesto, we committed to not increasing taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT. I think it is perfectly right that we do that and specify that in our manifesto. He also mentioned speculation. There has been huge speculation ahead of this Budget around specific taxes which at this Dispatch Box, on multiple occasions, I have been unable to comment on, and I think he will understand why. As for announcements being made ahead of a Budget, that is a perfectly routine thing to do, and it is right that Parliament then has the opportunity to scrutinise those at the appropriate moment.

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, I broadly welcome the Government’s Statement, but we have to recognise that so many fiscal rules have come and gone in recent years that the credibility of the macroeconomic framework has been severely dented. Can the Financial Secretary confirm that the investment rule will apply to a specific year and not take the form of a discredited five-year rolling period where fiscal virtue is for ever deferred? Does he agree that what matters more than any rule is whether the Government have a credible plan for promoting growth and for stabilising and ultimately reducing the country’s debt in relation to national income?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Once again, I address a noble Lord who has far more experience in these matters than I do. I agree with a huge amount of what he says. I think that stability in fiscal rules is incredibly important and that they should not change particularly frequently—perhaps at the point when Governments change. I am tempted to agree with a lot of what he said, but unfortunately the Chancellor will set out the Government’s full fiscal plan, including the precise details about fiscal rules that he asks for, in tomorrow’s Budget, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast produced by the OBR.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is quite wrong when she suggests that the Chancellor has just announced her change in fiscal rules? They were proposed in her Mais Lecture in February, if one keeps up. Does he also agree that the fiscal rules implemented by Mr Hunt were yet another component of the irresponsible economic policies pursued by the Conservative Government?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly agree with both points made by my noble friend. Our fiscal rules, as he says, were set out by the Chancellor in her Mais Lecture and set out again in our manifesto. Everything that we have said subsequently is consistent with what we said in our manifesto, and I think that the policy of the Opposition is the reason our country is in the state it is in. It is why growth has been held back and why our critical infrastructure is basically on its knees.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I am a little confused. The Chancellor said before the election that she would not change the fiscal rules, because that would be fiddling the figures. Was she right then and wrong now? Can the Minister explain why we are having this Statement at all, ahead of the Budget? Why is it not part of the Budget consideration? Is it to distract attention from the fact that the Government are basically fiddling the figures and, in fiddling the figures, committing us to borrow more money to pay the interest on the money that has already been borrowed?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that I have huge respect for him, so I hate to say when he is wrong, as I think he is in his first point. We were extremely clear that we would change the fiscal rules to the new ones that we set out, first, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, in the Mais Lecture and then in our manifesto, which said:

“This represents a clear break from the Conservatives who have created an incentive to cut investment; a short-term approach that ignores the importance of growing the economy”.


We were crystal clear that we would change the fiscal rules. On the second point, it is perfectly reasonable that, when the Chancellor is at the IMF, she sets out her policies in this regard.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for this Statement; the real meat will come tomorrow. I also thank noble Lords opposite for reminding us of their gross irresponsibility and refusal to accept any responsibility for this situation. When you have fiscal rules that distinguish general expenditure and investment in one way or another, you need a clear definition of investment. The problem is that pinning down such a definition is difficult in practice. When we on the Economic Affairs Committee took evidence from Joseph Stiglitz, he drew attention to this, instancing the possibility that spending more money on nurses would count as investment towards the sort of growth we need in the economy.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an extremely interesting point. I am grateful for his support for what I have set out and will take away his point to give it further consideration.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the Chancellor can fiddle figures all she likes to allow more borrowing, but that will simply lead to more interest payments, in excess of the £100 billion or so that we already have, which will lead to great damage in the market. The change of fiscal rules on borrowing is apparently to fix an alleged black hole, so would the Minister care to comment on the highly respected IFS director Paul Johnson’s statement that:

“The numbers may be a little bit worse than they thought at the time … but the overall picture over the next four or five years is very, very similar to what we knew before the election”?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to talk about the £22 billion black hole left to us by the previous Government. He has done that in the past and I continue to be grateful to him. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility said at the time of the July statement that it did not know about this black hole at the heart of our finances; it established an independent review into it which will report in due course. I think there will be plenty more information on the £22 billion black hole in tomorrow’s Budget for the noble Lord to peruse.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, changes to the fiscal rules are welcome, as our devolved Governments need a new fiscal settlement. The Barnett formula has no legal standing, and the convention can be changed by the Treasury. Are there any plans on the horizon to replace the Barnett formula? If so, would this be a needs-based formula to ensure that wealth is redistributed fairly?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not aware that the Government have any such plans, but I hope that tomorrow’s Budget will include good news for Wales.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, the new policy on investment that has been announced will be widely welcomed on this side of the House as giving an opportunity for the public sector, in partnership with the private sector, to raise the dismal rate of growth that we experienced under the last Government. Will my noble friend not let noble Lords opposite get away with the total unsustainability of their fiscal plan to cut public investment from 2.6% of GDP to 1.9%, which would have had disastrous consequences for growth and public services?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for that point and for his support for what we have set out. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the record we inherited. As he says, the UK lags behind every other G7 country on business investment as a share of our economy, and the plans we inherited from the previous Government would have seen public sector investment decline to the lowest level in over 10 years. Nothing we have heard so far today suggests that they think there is anything wrong with that.

My noble friend also drew attention to the importance of partnership with the private sector. To rebuild our country, it is vital that we increase investment in partnership with the private sector. As he says, we must first create the conditions for the private sector to invest by stabilising our economy and introducing reforms to things such as planning and skills. The Government must invest alongside business, through expert bodies such as the new national wealth fund, to catalyse more private sector money. As we have been discussing today, there is also a significant role for public investment to play.

[Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)]

My Lords, when I was Chief Secretary, working with the former Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, every single spending department that presented its plans to me described them as “investment”. There is often a very good case for saying that spending more on nurses or teachers is going to help productivity more than building new hospitals or schools is. Does the Minister agree with me, and indeed with the noble Lord opposite, that without a really tough definition of what investment means, this will turn out to be just an increase in public spending?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It may surprise the noble Lord but, yes, I absolutely agree with what he says. That will be a vital part of the guard-rails we set out in the Budget tomorrow.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, borrowing to invest in genuine projects that will improve the productivity of the country obviously makes sense, but if the Government are going to look at the fiscal rules again, will they consider when and how they will account for unfunded public sector pensions? At some stage, the country needs to know about those obligations too.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. As I have said already, the Chancellor will set out the Government’s full fiscal plan, including the precise details of our fiscal rules, in tomorrow’s Budget.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, when the Minister was first talking about the so-called black hole, it was £21 billion. Does he accept that this is actually less than 2% of total government spending? It is almost inconceivable that anybody with their head screwed on properly in the Treasury could not find savings to that amount.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to talk about the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that was covered up from the British people, from this House and from the OBR, which has confirmed it by establishing its independent review. It was always £22 billion, contrary to what the noble Lord says. If he would like to come up with £22 billion of savings, I would more than like to hear them.

[Lord Grayling (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s goal in announcing these changes is to increase capital spending. The Minister made reference to putting in place additional process to assess the viability of that capital spending, yet we already have extensive process that can be immensely costly, with organisations such as the Infrastructure and Projects Authority going through public spending and public capital projects with a fine-toothed comb. Exactly how does he think adding additional process to what is already there is going to speed things up, given that the Government are determined to deliver capital projects more quickly?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for highlighting the guard-rails that will be set out tomorrow, when further details will be set out in the Budget.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord corrected me and said I had made a mistake in saying that the Chancellor had said that she would not alter the fiscal rules, because that would be fiddling the figures. On 9 October 2023, in interviews around the Labour Party conference at that time, that is exactly what she said. She stressed that Labour would not alter the fiscal rules to fit its spending goals, as doing so, in her words, amounted to “fiddling the figures”. What happened between October 2023 and the Mais Lecture to change her mind about the unwisdom of fiddling the figures?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Nothing changed. There is a slight misunderstanding here. We have always been very clear that we would change the previous Government’s fiscal rules. The Chancellor was referring to the fact that we would not change the fiscal rules we set out—and we have not. The fiscal rules that we are delivering absolutely fit our manifesto commitments, and I do not understand the lack of understanding on the Benches opposite. The

“stability rule will mean that day-to-day spending will be matched by revenues”,

exactly as we committed to in our manifesto—that is a direct quote. In addition, the investment rule will deliver on our manifesto commitment to get debt falling as a proportion of our economy. Both those things were set out in our manifesto, both were set out in the Mais Lecture and both will be delivered in tomorrow’s Budget.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the Labour Party manifesto was, in essence, just smoke and mirrors? There are smoke and mirrors surrounding not only the fiscal rule—I am still trying to understand his sentence about changing your own fiscal rules, but I will leave that there—but what a “working person” is. When one writes a manifesto, one does not do it such that one can get things round the British people; one should do it with clarity. I suspect that there is a certain lack of clarity in the Labour Party manifesto.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I fully sympathise with the noble Baroness that she struggles to understand the concept of keeping manifesto commitments. She will see in the Budget tomorrow that we will keep every manifesto commitment we made to the British people.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the party opposite made six or seven changes to the fiscal rules between 2010 and when it left office, and never really explained how that worsened the public finances?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend.

Working From Home: Public Sector Productivity

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of working from home on productivity in the public sector.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government inherited a situation where public sector productivity remained 6.4% below pre-pandemic levels. This is clearly unacceptable. Our focus is on fundamental reform of our public services, to drive greater efficiency and productivity. Further details on this agenda will be set out in the Budget and spending review.

Assessments of the impact of working from home on productivity seem—so far—to be inconclusive. The Government are very clear on the benefits of collaborative face-to-face working, in the Civil Service in particular. Studies by the IMF, the University of Manchester, the CBI, Google and Amazon have set out clear advantages to a hybrid working model.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, my Question was prompted by an interesting claim made by the Minister’s colleague the Business Secretary. He said that

“allowing working from home creates a more productive, loyal workforce”.

I suggest that that is a sweeping statement, lacking in hard evidence. This is clearly an area where one size does not fit all. When will we see some credible, data-driven research, across all areas of the public sector, to measure the real impact of working from home on productivity?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree 100% with the noble Lord that one size does not fit all. So far, studies have been reasonably inconclusive. Some have shown significant drawbacks to working from home, including a lack of social interaction and the associated mental health impacts that that brings, less progression—especially in the early stages of a career—and less creativity and innovation. But there are also some clear advantages to a degree of hybrid working, including more focused working, the ability to work on confidential issues and some interesting labour-supply impacts, particularly for those with disabilities or childcare responsibilities. So I think the jury is out, but more studies are being undertaken all the time.

[Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the biggest contribution to improving productivity, particularly in central government, would be to control and reverse the ballooning size of the Civil Service? It fell by 21% in the time of the coalition Government, but has since increased by 34%. Is not that uncontrolled growth a contributor to poor productivity? Could the first step be to have someone unequivocally in charge of the Civil Service, instead of the fudged arrangements that are apparently about to be continued?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting point. The Government inherited a situation where public service productivity remained 6.4 % below pre-pandemic levels, and the ballooning size of the Civil Service—as he described it—under the previous Government may have contributed to that. I do not know the answer to that, but the Chancellor has been very clear that the Government will establish a programme of public sector reform to drive much greater productivity, improving the quality of public services and the value for money that we receive.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have inherited a rather shrunken Whitehall estate from their Conservative predecessors, where hot-desking had become the norm in a number of departments. Are the Government confident that, if all civil servants turned up five days a week, there would be enough desks for them to sit at?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No, there would not. One of the benefits of working from home is a much more efficient use of office space. It has a beneficial impact on capital in terms of releasing office space for more productive use, and that is currently what is under way.

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, how does the Minister measure productivity in the public sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

There are a variety of measures, as I understand it. The ONS has a fairly standard measure. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right that it is much harder to measure productivity in the public sector than it is in the private sector. Measures that the Government are undertaking, such as increasing the number of GP appointments or reducing waiting lists, increase public sector output and therefore productivity.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, following on from that answer from the Minister, NHS England says that productivity in the NHS has declined by 11% since before the pandemic. At the same time, nearly 40% of the staff in NHS England and ICBs work from home. One of the comments made is that we require managers with experience and training to allow for better management of the flow of patients, so that clinicians who cannot work from home are better able to deliver their services. What is the answer?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not sure I am going to be able to answer that right now, but, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, in his investigation into the state of the NHS, productivity in the NHS has fallen significantly and is far too low. Improving productivity in the NHS is a key priority. What the noble Lord said about management was really interesting. Emerging studies show that, where workforces are well managed, productivity can rise with working from home. This is a point that the noble Lord who asked the original Question raised in a previous debate on this subject, which I read: the quality of management has a key impact on productivity when working from home.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, although good management certainly makes a difference, there is strong evidence from academic studies that working from home reduces productivity—although there are other benefits. So far, this Government have been coy about publishing office attendance figures for government departments, as we used to do. Will the Minister ensure that the publication of such figures is restarted and that working from home is limited to those areas where efficiency is not compromised?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

This Government have exactly the same policy in terms of civil servants working from home as the last Government: civil servants should be in the office for a minimum of 60% of the time. That is unchanged and those figures will of course be published in exactly the same way. The noble Baroness said that working from home reduced productivity: that is not actually the case, according to many studies. I read one from the IMF recently that said that the positive and negative effects of working from home roughly offset each other, generating no net productivity impact.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

Would my noble friend like to comment on the fact that, as a result of the pandemic, disabled people have been able to access work and all sorts of other things—like this House—more than they had previously? I hope that the Government will factor into their examination of this the fact that there are absolutely positive benefits of working from home for those with disabilities.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I 100% agree with my noble friend. Most of the studies that have emerged so far on this subject suggest that there are very positive labour supply impacts of working from home. They particularly apply to those with disabilities who do not have to commute to the workplace and have their home working environment already adapted to their needs. They also apparently apply to those with childcare responsibilities coming back into the labour market.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, a recently published economic report by Pragmatix has identified the extraordinary gap between urban and rural productivity, including on homeworking, exacerbated by the problem of rural connectivity. Is the Minister aware of some of the local solutions that are now being tried? We are involved in some of those, for example with hosting antennae in church spires and towers and bouncing signals into more remote areas to enable homeworking and to increase productivity. Would he be willing to support some of these important initiatives for the sake of rural sustainability?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is an interesting question, and the answer is yes, I would be very willing to look at those impacts. As we have been discussing, labour supply has impacts across the economy. In rural areas, where sometimes it is difficult to travel into work, being able to work from home and the ability to have fast-speed internet connections can make a massive difference, and I would be more than happy to look at those issues.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Is the Minister confident that working from home is increasing productivity and does he think there is any correlation between the rise in the number of people watching daytime television and the rise in the number of people working from home?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

At no point in any of my answers did I say it raises productivity—just so I am very clear. I will read from the IMF’s report, for the noble Lord’s benefit:

“Classic firm and individual micro studies typically find that hybrid working … has a roughly flat impact on productivity. Working from home benefits workers by saving them from exhausting commutes and typically provides a quieter working environment. But by reducing time at the office, it can also reduce employees’ ability to learn, to innovate, and to communicate. These positive and negative effects roughly offset each other, generating no net productivity impact”.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, are the Government taking into account the effect on customers, and indeed taxpayers? My experience of ringing HMRC was that I was told that the official was working from home and was unable to access the computer necessary to order a tax statement for me. I thought that was odd. I would have thought the infrastructure needed to be in place.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I obviously cannot comment on the particular phone call that the noble Baroness had, but I will say that the same IMF study says:

“Some studies … found large positive impacts, typically in more self-directed activities, such as call centre or data entry work”.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on this group. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is not in this place and so was unable to speak to his amendment. I understand why the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has tabled his amendment, and I am grateful to him for his exposition of the background to it. On these Benches, we recognise the unusual role that the Crown Estate has in the stewardship of the assets held in the right of the Crown. We recognise, too, that the revenues from the assets do not belong to the sovereign, nor is any part of them payable directly to the monarch.

The issue here is one of communication. It must be—it is absolutely essential—that there be no perception of any direct financial link between the sovereign and any amounts received under the sovereign grant and the amount of revenue generated by the Crown Estate. Upon the announcement of the partnership with GB Energy, there was a perception from some of the more excitable end of the media that the sovereign was somehow party to, and specifically approving of, the arrangement. I encourage the Minister and commissioners of the Crown Estate to ensure that information in the public domain about the operation of the Crown Estate, but also any further partnerships that may come down the track, cannot possibly suggest any direct involvement from the sovereign and, therefore, that there should be no undue benefit accrued.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his amendment and I will seek to address some of the points that he has raised. This amendment would require the Government, within one year of the passing of this Act and annually thereafter, to lay before Parliament a report into the effect of this Act on the size of the sovereign grant. The Government agree that it is important that there is transparency in how the sovereign grant is affected by changes in Crown Estate profits. Indeed, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 includes a number of requirements that provide for regular effective review and reporting to Parliament.

As the noble Earl observed, under the Act, the grant for each financial year is set by reference to the profits of the Crown Estate. In broad terms, under Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act it is currently the higher of 12% of the Crown Estate profits two years previously or the previous year’s grant. For example, the level of the grant for 2025-26 will be set at 12% of the profits the Crown Estate reported in its annual accounts for 2022-23, published in July.

Section 7 of the Sovereign Grant Act provides for regular reviews of the percentage used in calculation of the grant to ensure the grant remains at an appropriate level. These reviews are conducted by the three royal trustees—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. The trustees must lay a copy of the report of their review before Parliament. The last review concluded in July last year and concluded that the reference rate should be reduced from 25% to 12%, reflecting an expected increase in the Crown Estate’s profits. The next review will commence in 2026, with a view to making any change to the grant calculation for 2027-28 onwards. As with previous reviews, it will consider both the future funding needs of the Royal Household and the likely future path of Crown Estate profits—including, of course, the effect of the Crown Estate Bill that we are debating today on those profits—to determine the appropriate percentage to use.

I should note in this context that the grant for 2026-27 will include the final tranche of funding for the current 10-year programme of reservicing of Buckingham Palace’s infrastructure. The percentage for 2027-28 onwards will therefore need to reflect the significant downward adjustment to the household’s funding requirements. The Sovereign Grant Act currently restricts the level of the grant itself being reduced from one year to the next. That provision was written into the Sovereign Grant Act to reflect the view that many of the duties of the Head of State cannot be abruptly stopped, and therefore it would not be appropriate to significantly reduce funding in response to a sudden drop in Crown Estate profits. That will, however, constrain the ability to reduce the grant by the likely appropriate amount once the reservicing of Buckingham Palace is complete. In 2016, when the previous Government agreed to provide funding for the resurfacing programme, they noted an intention to bring forward legislation to reset the level of the sovereign grant to an appropriate level once the reservicing works have been completed. I can confirm that it is also the intention of this Government.

Those statutory reviews therefore provide Parliament with a report of the impact of this Bill on the sovereign grant. They also provide a mechanism to ensure that additional Crown Estate profits do not lead to excessive funding for the Royal Household. Where that is not possible under the Sovereign Grant Act, the Government will legislate accordingly.

On reporting requirements, the Sovereign Grant Act also requires two further reports on the grant to be produced and laid before Parliament each year. First, Section 5 requires the royal trustees to produce a report annually stating the level of the grant for the following financial year and how that has been determined in line with a prescribed method set out in Section 6 of the Act. This report must be laid before Parliament. Secondly, Section 2 requires the Keeper of the Privy Purse to produce annual accounts relating to the Royal Household, including the use of the sovereign grant. In common with other central government bodies, the accounts are prepared in accordance with an accounts direction issued by the Treasury, audited by the National Audit Office and laid in Parliament. The Crown Estate Act 1961 also contains a requirement for the Crown Estate to produce an annual report and accounts.

The Government therefore agree that it is important that there is regular reporting to Parliament on how the changes in this Bill will impact the sovereign grant. As I have detailed, there is already a considerable set of statutory requirements in this respect and beyond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for the points raised during this debate and for powerfully highlighting such important issues. I will respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Douglas-Miller—who was the Minister for Animal Health and Welfare in the previous Government—and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, which all touch on environmental and animal welfare protections.

These amendments would require the Crown commissioners to assess, on an ongoing basis, the environmental impact and animal welfare standards of, respectively, salmon farms, offshore energy installation and generation and aquacultural practices on the Crown Estate. Where that assessment determines that a salmon farm, a relevant offshore energy installation and generation, or relevant aquaculture is causing environmental damage or has significant animal welfare issues, the Crown Estate would be required to revoke the relevant licence. The commissioners would also be required to make the same assessment of any applications for new licences for salmon farms or the installation and generation of offshore energy on the estate. Where the commissioners determine that an application may cause environmental damage or raises significant animal welfare concerns, the Crown Estate must refuse the application.

The Government wholeheartedly support the objectives behind these amendments. It might help noble Lords if I set out the protections that currently exist in regulations and legislation, which apply regardless of the landlord. All aquaculture activity in England, including salmon farming, is regulated with the intention of ensuring that it is carried out in a responsible manner that respects the environment and protects consumer health and animal welfare, although I appreciate from the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that this intent is not currently being achieved. At present, virtually all salmon aquaculture in the UK takes place in Scotland. As has been observed, the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland is a devolved matter.

The Government’s starting point is that these amendments may duplicate existing protections that already exist in legislation or protections that are required by regulators as part of the licensing process for aquaculture and offshore energy installations. Specifically, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to any protected animal. The assimilated Council Regulation No. 1099/2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing requires that farmed fish are spared avoidable pain, distress or suffering during their killing and related operations. The Aquatic Animal Health (England and Wales) Regulations 2009 contain provisions to protect farmed fish from serious disease by introducing a system of authorisation for businesses involved in aquaculture.

To address a point on environmental impacts made by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 require the competent authority—in this context, the Crown Estate —to determine whether a plan or project is likely to have a significant effect on a European marine site. If so, it is then subject to an appropriate assessment. If that assessment shows that the plan or project could have an adverse impact on the integrity of the site that cannot be mitigated, authorisation of the activity must be refused unless specific derogations apply. For marine areas that are designated as a marine conservation zone under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, a marine conservation zone assessment is carried out by the public authority to test activities that may hinder the achievement of the conservation objectives of the specific zone and decide from the assessments whether the application for an activity can be authorised.

The Crown Estate seeks to supports the regulators through the inclusion of necessary requirements on any leases and requires all practitioners to comply fully with all legal obligations, including animal welfare practices. When developing or managing its assets, especially in areas such as offshore wind farms, coastal management and urban redevelopment, the Crown Estate must comply with regulations that require environmental impact assessments. An example of this happening in practice was in February 2017, when the Crown Estate launched an opportunity for existing wind farms to apply for project extensions. Following a habitats regulations assessment, the Crown Estate confirmed that seven of these extension application projects would progress to the award of development rights.

The Crown Estate also received an application for an extension project where the majority of the site of the proposed extension sat within the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge special area of conservation. The plan-level habitats regulations assessment determined that it would not be possible to rule out an adverse effect on the integrity of the special area of conservation. Therefore, the Crown Estate decided that this extension project would not progress to the award of leasing rights as part of the 2017 extensions round.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about looking at impacts holistically, that is exactly what this Bill seeks, by enabling the Crown Estate to map the whole seabed and therefore improve the understanding of how to ensure benefits for nature for the long term.

I would be interested to know in due course whether noble Lords consider that these existing regulations and the legislation are inadequate or are currently being inadequately applied. I hope that, for now, the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Douglas-Miller, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, feel able not to press their amendments.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

Is the Minister able to address the issue of pollution from all these crew transfer boats? I mentioned 125 million litres of diesel every year. If we are to have many more wind farms out to sea, that amount of diesel may get very large. Can he comment on converting these boats to electric?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am afraid that is not something I know about, but I am happy to write to the noble Earl.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which was clearly written by Treasury officials who do not get out very much. The Minister has been kind enough to say that we should indicate whether we think the existing legislative requirements and regulations are working. We have just had an excellent debate, which has made it absolutely clear that wild salmon are being destroyed, not just in this country, but elsewhere, so the answer is: it is hurting, and it is not working. A very modest requirement on the landlords, the owners of the seabed to—

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Just to be clear, I wanted clarification as to whether the existing legislation could work, or, in itself, could not work.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I would be very happy for the Minister to come back with an amendment that would indicate how it could be made to work, because it is not working. It seems to me a very modest measure that would say to the Crown Estate that it has given a licence to these people, so it is therefore under a duty to make sure that they act in accordance with all regulations and in a way which protects the environment for which they have responsibility. I cannot imagine why the Minister would reject that.

In view of the very inadequate response, I am very tempted to test the opinion of the Committee, but I will not because I hope that, perhaps in further discussions with the Minister, we can get an amendment which will actually offer some degree of protection to the hundreds of thousands of fishermen who are concerned about this, to the communities who are concerned about this and to the many, many people on a cross-party basis. I cite the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I who are united; we are linked at the hip in our determination to make this happen.

However, I would like to thank everyone who has spoken in the debate in support of not just my amendment but that of my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller, who made a very fine speech explaining precisely why things are not working. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Trenchard, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Moynihan and Lord Caithness, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, of course, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—it is quite a gathering. The Minister ought to go back and think about this again, and we will table a further amendment on Report.

I am most grateful to my colleague my noble friend Lord Roborough for the support that he gave to this amendment and his careful consideration. I have to say that I am not sure the Minister’s officials have shown the same diligence in looking at what is a major problem which, if not tackled with immediacy, will see the extinction of the wild salmon in this country. That is not something that any Government would want on their record. Given the response, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I may not entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on this. I agree with the intention of this amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. While we also acknowledge that the Crown Estate in Scotland is devolved, the entity remains closely aligned in its nature and the objectives sought from it, with considerable overlap in the kind of assets that are owned and managed. The Bill before us creates considerable new powers for the Crown Estate of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. First among those is the power to borrow, with the benefits to investment and flexibility that that allows. It also creates new obligations—hopefully, to include taking full responsibility for the environmental impact of offshore energy and fish farming. Those are not present in the devolved Crown Estate of Scotland. As noble Lords have described, it may well be helpful if the Minister committed to providing clear information on those differences once the Act has been implemented in order to allow both entities to learn what is best practice. Oversight and transparency are desirable in all areas of government, and I am most interested to hear the Minister’s response to this amendment and debate.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 37D, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament within 12 months of the day this Act is passed that assesses any differences between the provisions made by this Act for the management of the Crown Estate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and equivalent provisions for the management of the Crown Estate in Scotland.

It is possible now to provide such an assessment, and I am happy to set that out. Section 36 of the Scotland Act 2016 inserted a new Section 90B into the Scotland Act 1998. Subject to certain exceptions, Section 90B provided for the devolution in relation to Scotland of the commissioners’ management functions relating to property, rights or interests in land in Scotland and rights in relation to the Scottish zone.

Devolution occurred on 1 April 2017 under, and in accordance with, the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017. The relevant property, rights and interests are now managed separately by Crown Estate Scotland under the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 and the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, as enacted by the Scottish Parliament. They do not form part of the Crown Estate as currently managed by the Crown Estate commissioners.

The relationship between Crown Estate Scotland and the Scottish Government is governed by a public framework document which sets out a broad framework within which Crown Estate Scotland operates, and certain financial aspects. Any changes to that framework document or the wider legislation that underpins it are a matter for the Scottish Government.

I turn to the principal differences and similarities. The Bill grants the commissioners of the Crown Estate a power to borrow with Treasury consent and provides the Treasury with the power to issue loans and financial assistance to the commissioners, including out of the National Loans Fund. The Bill also specifies that the Treasury may determine the rate of interest on any loan and requires the Treasury to pay any sums received in respect of the loan into the National Loans Fund.

In comparison, Part 2, Section 1.1 of the framework document for Crown Estate Scotland explains that

“Scottish Ministers may make grants and loans to Crown Estate Scotland”

and such grants and loans are

“subject to such conditions (including conditions as to repayment) as the Scottish Ministers may determine”.

Part 2, Section 2.1 requires that:

“All borrowing by Crown Estate Scotland … shall be from the Scottish Ministers in accordance with guidance in the Borrowing, Lending & Investment section of the”


Scottish Public Finance Manual.

On investment, this Bill clarifies the commissioners’ existing ability to invest by inserting into the 1961 Act that:

“The powers exercisable by the Commissioners in the discharge of their functions under this Act include powers to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of those functions”.

It also omits subsection (4) from Section 3 of the 1961 Act, which will broaden the commissioner’s investment powers.

In comparison, Part 1, Section 3.2 of the framework document for Crown Estate Scotland explains that Scottish Ministers are responsible for

“approving Crown Estate Scotland’s Corporate Plan”,

which includes their investment strategy. Part 2, Section 7.3 requires Crown Estate Scotland to

“undertake investment in line with its legislative duties”,

which are set out in the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, principally in Part 3, across Sections 7 to 21.

On the constitution of the commissioners, the Bill increases the maximum number of commissioners from eight to 12 and omits the requirement that the second Crown Estate commissioner, if any, be deputy chairman. It also simplifies the legislative process by which commissioners are paid, such that the commissioners’ salaries and expenses are paid directly out of the income of the Crown Estate, rather than out of money provided by Parliament, which comes from the return made by the commissioners to the Government each year.

In comparison, under Part 1, Section 3.5 of the frame- work document for Crown Estate Scotland, the board membership is limited to nine members, including the chair. On remuneration, Section 7 of the Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management) Order 2017 makes it clear that

“Crown Estate Scotland … must pay each member such remuneration and allowances (including expenses) as the Scottish Ministers may determine”.


The differences between these two organisations reflect the fact that the organisations have formed in different ways. The 1961 Act, which, as I have set out, is the legislative basis of the Crown Estate in its current form, was fulfilling a recommendation of the government Committee on Crown Lands—as set out in its report presented to Parliament in June 1955—to appoint an independent board of commissioners to manage the Crown Estate, with provisions designed to enable Parliament and the Treasury to know how it is discharging its responsibilities. To briefly quote from the 1955 report:

“The board should be a public authority, but not a government department in the sense of an organ of executive government. … We do however respectfully advise that the board should be more, not less, independent than the present Commissioners and that they should be given defined powers and duties as trustees and allowed to work them out with the minimum of direction and control.”


In comparison, Crown Estate Scotland was created by the Scottish Crown Estate Act 2019, which makes specific provisions about the management of the Scottish Crown Estate and followed on from a process of devolution established by the Scotland Act 2016. Crown Estate Scotland is specifically required to align its aims and objectives with the Scottish Government’s published programme for government, and Scotland’s economic strategy and national performance framework.

I hope this assessment was helpful and that I have provided some clarity on the points raised.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

It is very interesting that the Minister has not mentioned—unusually, because he is always incredibly well briefed—the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017, which was the scheme under Section 90B of the Scotland Act, under which this was transferred. Schedule 4 of that is headed, “Protection of UK-wide interests”, which is quite a thing, and the subject we have been talking about this afternoon. I wonder whether he would comment on that and how it affects the assessment that he has just made.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Earl on that point. In the meantime, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

The Minister has not really addressed the fundamental point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull: fish and birds do not know where the border is between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and there are common interests. All he has done is read out a list of regulations and statutes that apply to the two commissions. I think the noble Earl was asking what provisions can be made, so that the two sets of commissioners are able to operate in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. As a unionist, he will surely appreciate the importance of that.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

What I read out was a response to the amendment tabled, which asked for exactly that; that is why I read it out. The noble Lord raises profound constitutional questions which I may not be the right person to address them to.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

I asked a question as well: is the Minister going to afford every assistance to what is going on? This is something worth discussing. There is a danger here, and it is in the interests of all of us, as sub-owners of the Crown Estate, that the position is regularised. I am sorry if symmetry is too strong a word because they are differently enacted, but it is important to be in a position where they have very similar powers. It is in the interests of everyone in these islands that the two things can work together when required and that they have similar powers, so they can engage in the same energy deals and the same things in aquaculture.

It would be very helpful to have a meeting with the Minister to go through some of this in detail. Sadly, obviously, he has not been showing me the scheme and the scheme deliberately had—I cannot remember which subsection of Section 93 it was—the power to lay the scheme and to have some exceptions in what is going on. It is not as simple as everything simply being exported. It is being exported and there is essentially an option over every square inch of the land that is exported to come back into the UK as a whole in certain circumstances. That is the effect of Schedule 4 of the Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017. It is very important, so I ask the Minister, before he sits down, whether he would agree to have a meeting. It sounds as if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would like to come to that meeting as well.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very happy to have that meeting. I do not know whether the noble Lord does want to join, but of course he is always welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I confess that I was fascinated by the amendments put down by the shadow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, whom I remember on many occasions defending Henry VIII clause after Henry VIII clause. She is now calling for extraordinary levels of accountability, but I suppose going into opposition somehow changes a perspective.

The documents that have been requested, which is the main content of this group of amendments, are, in essence, documents that I requested at the beginning of the process. The Minister has been generous, in a way that I think would not have happened in the past, to assure us that those documents will be made available before we reach Report so that, at that final stage of the process, we have enough information to know whether we need to challenge the content of the Bill or can accept it. I am satisfied to take his word for it, as his comments were made on the Floor of the House.

If the Minister can add anything about timing or content, that would be interesting. We had some confusion at one point about what is a memorandum of understanding and what is a framework agreement, but that has been clarified. I am satisfied that we are getting more information from this Government than, frankly, I ever could have hoped for, on similar issues, from the Government before.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere of Norbiton and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley, which all seek to alter the timing of the Bill’s commencement.

I start by addressing Amendment 42, tabled by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. This amendment would alter the commencement of the Bill, so that it comes into force either two months after the Bill has passed or after the Crown Estate commissioners have published the Crown Estate’s lease extension policy and a Minister of the Crown has tabled a Motion in both Houses to debate the policy—whichever is later.