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.

Independent School Fees: VAT

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what estimates they have made of the pupil migration arising out of the proposed VAT on independent school fees, and what is the exact basis of such estimates.

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

My Lords, in July, the Government set out their view that the number of pupils who may switch schools as a result of these changes represents a very small proportion of overall pupils in the state sector. Projections from the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that this is likely to represent less than 0.5% of total UK state school pupils, with any movement expected to take place over several years. At the Budget, the Government will set out our assessment of the expected impacts and a tax information and impact note. This assessment will be consistent with the costings of this policy by the Office for Budget Responsibility. In making this assessment, the Government will consider pass-through of VAT to school fees as well as the likely elasticity of demand.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for answering my Question. He cites the IFS report that advised that there would be a very small pupil migration of between 3% and 7%. The question is whether that is correct. Do the findings of the IFS provide any clear indication of parents’ ability to pay a 20% increase in the cost of school fees? Also, should not the Government listen to the parents of pupils in independent schools in the various parent surveys? In recent surveys, between 18% and 26% have said that they will not be able to pay this increase and will have to take their child or children out of independent schools.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

At the Budget, we will set out an assessment of the expected impacts of this policy in the normal way by publishing a tax information and impact note. In this assessment, we will consider, first, the likely pass-through of VAT to school fees. Here, after a cover of VAT on input costs, we expect schools to be liable for VAT of an average of around 15% of their fee income. The Government expect that private schools will take steps to absorb a significant proportion of this VAT liability. Secondly, we will consider the likely elasticity of demand, which will be consistent with the elasticity used by the OBR in the costing of this policy. It is worth noting that, despite a 75% real-terms increase in fees since 2000, the number of children in independent schools has remained steady, which suggests an inelastic demand for private school places.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Should we not all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, who has sent a very thorough report to the Prime Minister, showing the dire consequences that the Government’s education tax will have? Is it not time that the Government realised that their education tax—the first in our history—is likely to force a large number of parents, particularly those using small special needs schools in the independent sector, to move their children next term to state schools which are wholly unprepared for them?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Lord’s question is no, because the assumptions underlying that report are incorrect. We expect that a large number of private schools will take steps to absorb a significant proportion of this VAT liability, so the majority of that fee will not be passed through.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, 3,000 military families take advantage of the continuing education allowance and send their children to private school. In previous answers, the Minister has said that no decision will be taken on how the impact of the VAT rise will be dealt with for those families until the spending review. The Armed Forces are facing a retention crisis, as is well known. Why does the Minister think that leaving those families with this level of uncertainty is going to help with that retention?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The core answer to the noble Lord’s question is that very many private schools will take steps to absorb a proportion, if not all, of the new VAT liability, so there may actually be no increase in fees in such circumstances, which is why it is right that we leave it until the spending review. It is worth pointing out that very many military personnel send their children to state schools and want them to benefit from the improvements that will happen in those schools.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is participating remotely.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

Why not positively foster pupil migration from the public schools into the state boarding school sector, such as Keswick School, a comprehensive in the Lake District? They offer a far wider social mix, often higher standards of education, help to foster far more balanced social interaction among the young, and all at a fraction—often one-third —of the cost. Is this discussion about not just tax receipts but breaking down social division that can begin in childhood and later divide society?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful for my noble friend’s insights. I will take those on board.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister keeps saying, “Our modelling, our predictions” et cetera. What happens if they have got it wrong? If, for example, 10%, 20% or 30% of pupils leave the private sector, have the Government made contingency plans to ensure a sufficient number of teachers and sufficient provision? A point was made about special needs schools. Many children in the private sector are in special schools providing a particular type of provision. Will that be available in the state system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks about the assumptions we are making. As I said, we will set out our assessment of the expected impacts of this policy in the normal way by publishing a tax information impact note at the time of the Budget. At that point he can judge those assumptions for himself.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

According to the Government, VAT is a tax on consumption and therefore falls on the parents. Yet the Minister keeps saying that this consumption tax will be absorbed by the producer—the schools. Many noble Lords have pointed out today that schools cannot simply magic up lots of cash to mitigate against this consumption tax on the parents. Has he considered that he is undermining what a tax on the consumer actually is?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness will know that how schools will fund this additional cost is a commercial decision for each school. Some schools have already announced a very wide range of fee increases, from zero to 5%, to 10%, up to, for example, Eton at 20% above the average expected VAT liability. This reflects the Government’s expectation that private schools will take steps to absorb a significant proportion of the new VAT liability.

[Noble Lords]

My Lords—

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Is the Minister aware of the disproportionate impact that this tax will have on Christian schools in Northern Ireland given the structure of the education system there? Given that, will a specific impact assessment be carried out?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The impact assessment will cover the full range of expected impacts.

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

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us think that taxing the schools like other private enterprises is long overdue? Will he confirm that, in the case of the sons and daughters of MoD and FCDO personnel, it is in fact just a transfer from one government department to the other and has no net impact?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with the spirit of my noble friend’s point. This is a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people. The Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and determined to drive up standards in those schools serving the overwhelming majority of children in this country.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

What is clear from the comments is that this is all built on a number of assumptions that clearly could be incorrect. Given that the whole objective of this is to raise money, will the Minister undertake a review a year from now when this has been in place to see whether those assumptions were borne out, or, as we suspect, it has ended up losing money and will be repealed?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Government are extremely confident in our costings. We expect this policy to raise significant amounts of revenue. The Office for Budget Responsibility will certify the Government’s costings at the Budget. Of course, one keeps all tax policy under review.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Do the Minister and the Government realise that we are talking about not only Eton, Winchester and Westminster? There are a large number of small independent schools serving local people on relatively low fees. They are the ones that will fail, in Northern Ireland and other places. There is no point reviewing it in a year’s time—they will be closed and those children may or may not find sufficient places in the local state schools.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I disagree with the assumptions that underlie the noble and learned Baroness’s assumptions. As I said, some schools have already announced a very wide range of fee increases, from zero to 5% and up to 10%.

Tax Reliefs: Theatre, Orchestra and Museums and Galleries Exhibition

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to maintain the current rates of Theatre Tax Relief, Orchestra Tax Relief, and Museums and Galleries Exhibition Tax Relief, as announced in the Budget on 6 March, beyond the current Spending Review period.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to supporting the creative industries, which play a key role in driving economic growth. As part of the Government’s industrial strategy, a creative industries sector plan will be developed, working with business, local leaders and sector experts. I am unable to comment on any specific taxes ahead of the Budget; any tax changes will be confirmed in the Budget on 30 October.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the Minister is limited in what he can say ahead of the Budget later this month, but the Government were willing last week to provide certainty for one part of our brilliant creative industries by confirming that they would continue the support we announced in March for independent film production. Does he acknowledge that brilliant organisations in theatres, orchestras, museums and galleries are already planning their programmes for 2026 and beyond, and need certainty too? If the Minister cannot give them that today, will he press that point on his colleagues at the Treasury and urge them to confirm the permanent uplift of the tax reliefs we announced in March, particularly in a week when the Government are enlisting the help of cultural icons to promote investment in the UK?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I know that the noble Lord has genuine concern for, and a great deal of expertise and experience in, the arts and culture sector. As I said, the Government are committed to supporting the creative industries, and to creating good jobs and accelerating growth in film, music, gaming and the other creative sectors that the noble Lord mentioned. That is why we have ensured that the creative sector is a key part of our industrial strategy. As the noble Lord said, I cannot comment on any specific taxes, but he will know that the Government face a very challenging fiscal situation. He will know that the previous Government left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which they concealed from the public, Parliament and the OBR. Addressing that will involve very difficult decisions on spending, welfare and tax.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, given that there are regional museums that are currently facing insolvency, does the Minister agree with me that, while tax relief is useful—indeed, necessary—the real concern for the arts is the wider one of inadequate funding levels?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Clearly, the Government recognise the importance of the arts to our public life and support the funding of the arts at the appropriate level. Unfortunately, I will have to say that the Government will set out their plans for supporting the arts in the coming spending review.

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to join in a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, because it gives me the opportunity to thank him from our Benches for the collegiate way in which he conducted himself as a DCMS Minister.

Bearing in mind the Minister’s commitment earlier, will he give any indication as to whether at yesterday’s investment conference there were any more commitments to put money into the film industry, or indeed the arts, apart from M&G’s investment in a new film project? Does he recognise that there remains an issue around the visual effects tax relief, which was announced in 2023 but for which implementation was stalled by the election? What is the status of this important tax relief? It is obviously vital to ensure that as much post-production work as possible stays in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning the investment summit yesterday, when the Government were able to announce a total of £64 billion of investment into the UK economy. That was a vote of confidence in this Government’s handling of the economy and the fact that our economy is now open for business. On the specific tax relief that the noble Lord mentioned, I am afraid that I cannot comment on speculation about any specific taxes ahead of the Budget.

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, the current relief offered to instrumental groups of 12 or more players does not extend to choirs, a situation that is logically indefensible, especially given the growing popularity of choirs across the nation. Can the Minister say whether the Government have formed a view on extending the relief to choirs, as requested by musical organisations all around the country, not least given the recent questions over the future of the BBC Singers?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Orchestra concerts with a vocal element are not excluded from the orchestra tax relief. Concerts with a vocal element, such as a choir, may be eligible if the instrumentalists are the primary focus of the concert. The current rules ensure that the orchestra tax relief meets its objective of supporting and incentivising orchestra concerts specifically.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, on the benefits of the orchestra tax relief, the permanent 45% rate has been transformative. It enables UK orchestras to build new audiences, support new productions, generate employment and develop future talent. The cost of the orchestra tax relief was only 1.5% of the total creative tax reliefs in 2022-23. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that keeping this tax relief is consistent with the Labour Government’s mission for economic growth?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. The creative industries are absolutely a major driver of economic growth in this country. She will be aware that I am unable to comment on speculation about specific taxes. In the coming Budget, we must rebuild our public finances to ensure economic stability, including by addressing the £22 billion black hole inherited from the previous Government, which will involve difficult decisions on spending, welfare and tax.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

The Minister again raises the alleged £22 billion tax hole. He was asked, this time last week, to explain what was in the £22 billion tax hole. He could identify only two items, which amounted to £9 billion—that is all he could find. It now transpires that HM Treasury’s policy paper of 2 August 2024 reveals that £9.4 billion of the so-called black hole has been created by Labour’s political decision to give public sector workers above-inflation pay grades. Does the Minister not agree with most of the House that this is a fictious black hole, created by Labour?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to talk about the £22 billion black hole in the public finances, which was concealed from this Parliament and the public, and, most importantly, from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which has confirmed that it exists and set up an inquiry to establish how it happened and to ensure that it does not happen again. The noble Lord asked me to list what went into the black hole. He knows, for example, of the £6 billion overspend on the asylum system, including the failed Rwanda scheme; of the £3 billion of uncosted commitments on road and rail projects; that the reserve was overspent, three times over, just three months into the financial year; and that there was a black hole in the spending plans for the public sector pay rises because the previous Government did not hold a spending review and did not give any affordability criteria to the pay review bodies. That is why it has happened and that is what we will ensure does not happen again.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Museum of the Home. A recent survey by civic museums has shown that there is a backlog of hundreds of millions of pounds of urgent maintenance outstanding for our great cultural institutions, including the British Museum. Roofs are leaking, threating the museum building structures and the collections within them. Is the Minister aware of the importance of continuing the museums tax relief to ensure that this backlog is addressed?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his question. We of course recognise the important role that the arts play in our lives. The Government will set out their plans to support the arts at the forthcoming spending review.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that everybody has heard loud and clear from my noble friend that he cannot make commitments that are waiting on decisions in the Budget. However, when he is talking to his colleagues at the Treasury, will he please stress the interdependency of all aspects of the cultural industries? Some generate more income than others but none is less important than any of the others, and without a proper sense of how they connect, all aspects of the cultural industries will suffer. Will he take that back to the Treasury and do the best he can to get the point across?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend. To be honest, I think that the point has already been registered; that is why we have made the creative industries a key part of our industrial strategy. The Government are committed to supporting the creative industries, including all the sectors that have been mentioned today, and that is why they will form a key part of the industrial strategy that was announced yesterday.

[Baroness Fleet (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether he recognises the vital role that the orchestra tax relief plays in the performing arts sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot comment on any specific tax.

[Baroness Quin (Lab)]

My Lords, having not had the opportunity before, I warmly welcome my noble friend to his role. I very much endorse the comments that have been made about the importance of tax relief for museums. Will the Government, as I hope they are already committed to do, consult with museums—including in my own region of the north-east, where this has been particularly helpful—before any further measures are considered?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

In drawing up future tax policy the Government will of course consult with all interested stakeholders.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for introducing his amendment, which leads this group, which is fundamentally concerned with the generation of energy on assets owned by the Crown Estate. This is even more important now that there is a formal relationship with GB Energy, which has been announced, although I accept that details of the relationship are quite thin on the ground. I entirely support the intention of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to require the publication of a report on the potential for energy generation on the Crown Estate, and I draw attention to my Amendment 35, which would ensure that no new electricity generation licences are granted without confirmation that a corresponding grid connection exists.

The problem of grid capacity, connection and storage is real and important. In May of this year, a House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee report found that in order to achieve net zero targets,

“the transmission and distribution network must develop and expand alongside the growth in supply and demand”.

It concluded that renewable energy generation may be stunted by “slow grid connections” and “limited grid capacity”. That is the issue I am trying to fix, and that all noble Lords are very much focused on. The Government must continue to look at it urgently if they are to build on the previous Conservative Government’s progress toward our clean energy targets. However, it is not an easy task. Even Green Party parliamentarians have been known to be vociferously opposed to measures to boost national grid capacity. I hear a Liberal Democrat laughing, and I am not entirely sure that that is appropriate. However, in the face of that kind of opposition, I ask the Minister to reassure the House that the Government have a plan to get on with increasing our national grid capacity.

At this point, I think it worth pushing the Minister, although we will come back to this on a later group, on the partnership with Great British Energy, which was announced to great fanfare a few months ago. I am still at a loss to explain how the new partnership between the two organisations, the Crown Estate and Great British Energy, will work and what difference it will make; indeed, this is the point of my amendment.

When the previous Conservative Government announced in the 2023 Autumn Statement plans to work with the Crown Estate to increase offshore wind capacity, that was predicted to unlock a further 20 to 30 gigawatts of new offshore wind seabed rights by 2030—great; that seems very fair. The Government have claimed that this new partnership will

“cut the time it takes to get offshore wind projects operating and delivering power to homes by up to half”.

Okay, but their press release of 25 July 2024 stated:

“The Crown Estate estimates this partnership will lead to up to 20-30GW of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030”.


To coin a phrase, nothing has changed. What difference does the partnership with GB Energy actually make, or did the Crown Estate get it wrong when it was working with the previous Government? Noble Lords can see the issue I have here: I do not understand how the tie-up with GB Energy is going to benefit that organisation, the Crown Estate and, indeed, the nation.

That, among other reasons, is why I tabled Amendment 34, which also requires a report on the energy generation supported by the Crown Estate. Its scope is wider than Amendment 16 and it facilitates greater oversight via reporting. It requires the Crown Estate commissioners to report annually on not only the expected impact of the relationship between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, but the actual impact. It would also include the investment strategy for capital investment in the infrastructure, including port infrastructure. This is where I am confused, because when I speak to the port sector, it tells me that finances are not particularly an issue. In a report published last month, the British Ports Association recognised that the sheer scale and speed of the investment needed to meet the ports’ offshore energy ambitions is significant. However, it called for a carefully managed investment in ports that fills gaps in ports’ supply chains that cannot be met by the private sector. These gaps can be filled by, for example, the national wealth fund, the Crown Estate or Great British Energy. Can the Minister explain who is managing, and which organisation will be investing how much in what, and when? I, for one, am confused. It is right to get some insight into this now, and to monitor progress in the future.

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

My Lords, I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, both of which touch on the topic of energy. I will start by addressing Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Lord.

This amendment would require the Crown Estate to publish a report within 12 months on the potential for energy generation on the Crown Estate, covering onshore and offshore wind grid capacity and energy pricing. While the Government are not in principle opposed to the Crown Estate producing specific reports on energy generation on its own estate, it is not within its remit or ability to report on grid capacity or pricing. As I have set out previously, the national grid and relevant transmission and distribution network operators are responsible for the UK-wide strategy on grid connectivity, and the new National Energy Systems Operator will be responsible for creating a strategic spatial energy plan, which will provide future clarity on grid connectivity.

The Crown Estate has already published, in September, a 53-page report entitled Future of Offshore Wind: Considerations for Development and Leasing to 2030 and Beyond, which looks at, among other things, the prime areas of opportunity for new wind farms. It has also recently published a Marine Delivery Routemap, which sets out its vision for the seabed and coastline.

Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, would require the Government to publish a report on the scope, nature and expected impact of the relationship between the Crown Estate and Great British Energy within six months of the passing of the Act, and thereafter publish an annual report. The Government have no principled objection to such a report, but the timing might be more usefully linked to the passing of the Great British Energy Bill, currently in the other place, rather than the Bill we are discussing today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I want to thank the Minister for the clarifications he gave on the difference between the framework agreement and the memorandum of understanding—it was really helpful of him to provide that today rather than wait for the next Committee date. While I am on my feet, I will use this opportunity to reinforce the probing amendments of my noble friends Lord Teverson and Lord Russell.

We are in an era of substantial change and I am sure the Minister is very aware of that. The greatest resistance to change comes from a measure of distrust and cynicism; people usually feel that change is not an opportunity, but will be something where they lose and others win. There is also very little trust of very big organisations and of organisations that are controlled at a physical distance from the area that people live in and know. With the proposals for a regional wealth fund and a focus on creating skills within the immediate community, the areas that have visible detriment can now also identify the possibility of benefit in a very real way. That makes change happen more rapidly.

I also come from a party that has great confidence in regional decision-making. Sometimes people use the words “postcode lottery”, but it is not that: it is that people within an area, knowing their local communities and people much more intimately, can target the programmes they put in place to benefit the lives of local people far more effectively than a distant decision-making entity can. I hope the Minister will look at this because, although we are talking about this Bill, we are in a much broader period of change. Creating a strategy such as regional wealth funds, used in this and possibly other instances, will give people the confidence that their community—their people, themselves and their families—will see some direct benefit, rather than being left in a situation where they cynically believe that they are carrying the detriment and that other people will benefit.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will respond to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, both of which touch on the topic of local and community benefits.

Amendment 27, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would require that a percentage of the Crown Estate’s licence fee for leases for offshore wind developments is distributed to a regional wealth fund. The Government are committed to working closely with the Crown Estate to support our target of clean power by 2030, by working collaboratively to accelerate and derisk the sustainable delivery of technologies such as offshore wind.

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, home-grown power to boost Britain’s energy independence and security.

The Crown Estate has also specifically designed the leasing process for its 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 wind farms. Tender bidders are required to think innovatively and constructively about how their developments can create a legacy of healthier, more resilient, fairer, vibrant and more prosperous communities, which stretch beyond the lifetime of the wind-farm leases for the benefit of generations to come. Commitments made during the tender process will be monitored, reported on and enforced throughout the lifetime of the relevant round 5 developments.

I recognise that this amendment would go even further, requiring a direct financial contribution from the Crown Estate to local communities. In essence, this is a very similar proposal to that put forward in Amendment 23, requiring a transfer of profits to the Welsh Government, as debated earlier. The concerns I set out there also apply here. Again, agreeing an appropriate level of payment would not be straightforward, because the relevant revenues and costs cannot be easily disentangled from the Crown Estate’s overall financial flows. Any arrangement of this nature would reduce the profits that the Crown Estate pays into the UK Consolidated Fund, reducing the revenues that can be allocated by the Government to the needs and priorities of the day, across all the UK.

Amendment 33, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would require the Crown Estate to pay a percentage of its profits into a skills training fund. It would also require that this fund works to provide skills training to persons residing on or employed by the Crown Estate to equip them to perform jobs in the green economy and that the training is agreed with industry in advance.

The Government are, of course, very supportive of the spirit behind this amendment, and I agree with much of what the noble Earl said about skills. We are committed to clean energy by 2030, accelerating to net zero and promoting biodiversity. To meet these ambitions, we need to make sure our workforce has the knowledge and skills to succeed in the green economy, both now and in the future. As part of this 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 will, among other things, help support the establishment of Skills England.

The Crown Estate is dedicated to supporting skills and training. As a UK company with a payroll of over £3 million, the Crown Estate pays the apprenticeship levy—0.5% of its payroll over £3 million—and hires apprentices into its business. It also runs various targeted initiatives. For example, it has an existing partnership with the Department for Work and Pensions to address recruitment barriers and is training a pool of 60 job coaches in the east of England, with plans to expand. It is also developing a skills pipeline among the 14 to 16 age group, and has already seed-funded a pilot GCSE qualification in engineering skills for offshore wind, developed by Cornwall College. The Crown Estate also works closely with Pembrokeshire College on the Destination Renewables pilot course, which equips students with skills for careers in renewable energy. In Grimsby, the Crown Estate partners with Projekt Renewable, which aims to spark local community interest in offshore wind activities and encourage careers in that sector.

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 this flexibility in how its skills initiatives are funded and delivered, to ensure it can contribute to skills training in the best possible way.

I hope that these explanations have been helpful and that I have provided some clarity on the points raised. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, feel able to withdraw and not press their amendments as a result.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, strangely enough, I am going to withdraw my amendment, to the shock of the Minister. However, I am seriously disappointed with the response.

I get absolutely all the supply chain arguments about development and maintaining offshore windfarms after the event, once they are operating. However, as the Minister knows himself, although some of the beneficiaries of those supply chains are local, some of them are international and are certainly not anchored to the region and those communities. The great thing about the Shetland example was that while the oil industry did very well—suppliers and lots of people came in—there were whole areas of the population of the Shetland Islands that did not benefit directly from those developments. Yet they did in the end, because of community wealth schemes—two of them, I think—that happened in Shetland. The same is true regionally.

When it comes to the argument that the Crown Estate would lose out on money or whatever from this, I would put the opposite view. A community or regional wealth fund would actually accelerate the ability to deliver these projects, because there would not be the opposition that there might be otherwise. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, and thank him for his contribution. It was good, as always, and emphasised the effect of coming onshore and all the facilities that are required, such as pylons and all the rest of it.

What it comes down to is a matter that I think everybody normally agrees with: a just transition. A regional wealth fund allows a just transition. I was going to quote back the Labour Party manifesto on just transitions, but strangely enough it does not mention that the transition should be just. That is a shame, but I genuinely believe that this will allow this important programme, which the Government are rightly pushing forward, to accelerate, be successful and have local and regional acceptance. At this point, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Crown Estate Bill [HL]

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken before me in this debate today. Predominantly, this is obviously around the devolution of powers over the Crown Estate in Wales to the Welsh Government. On these Benches, we have thought long and hard about this, and I hear the concerns of some noble Lords about how the devolved powers differ between Wales and Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland. But this is not a unique situation and I have concluded that I would encourage the Minister to resist any change at this time.

A number of noble Lords have raised certain challenges as to why this might be a good or a bad idea, and I look at this in a purely practical sense. If I look at the documents that have been provided and are available not only for the Crown Estate but also the Crown Estate’s relationship with GB Energy—the enormous commitment that the Crown Estate has made in terms of the amount of seabed licences it wishes to grant to enable energy generation by 2030—I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that change is coming and coming very significantly for the Crown Estate. In 10 years’ time, it is not going to look the same as it does now. Therefore, I think that we would introduce risk into what is already a very ambitious target set down by the Government to develop offshore wind should we be sidetracked by the desire to devolve limited powers over the Crown Estate at this time.

It is also worth bearing in mind that the Crown Estate is very clear in its documents—and I think the Committee will discuss this a bit more later—that it is an independent business and competes against the private sector. Splitting it at this time and taking out a chunk of the assets and going through all the procedures as to how you recognise those assets—as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—and how you think about which revenue streams go where would be a sideshow.

I note the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, but I am going to run with it slightly. At the moment, the Labour-run Welsh Government do not have the best record of governance. Of course, that might improve in the future and progress may well be made, so I conclude by saying that we encourage the Minister to resist these amendments and we believe that they would be unwise at this time.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (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 the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Hain, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Humphreys. I hope to be able to explain the Government’s rationale for retaining the existing structure of the Crown Estate.

First, let me set out how the Crown Estate currently operates and why the Government believe this remains the best approach. The Crown Estate Act 1961 requires the Crown Estate commissioners to manage the Crown Estate as a commercial enterprise to enhance long-term value and generate profit and to do so with due regard to the requirements of good management. A key purpose of the 1961 Act was to repeal various detailed statutory provisions that had built up over 150 years previously which were hampering the effective management of the estate. By focusing the commissioners’ duties on enhancing the estate’s value and the returns generated, the commissioners have a clear objective for which they can be held to account.

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. The Government believe that the Crown Estate should continue to operate in this way, as a commercial business independent from government, because it has shown itself to be a trusted and successful organisation, with a proven track record in effective management.

The Crown Estate is multibillion-pound public corporation, which is required to pay its profits into the UK Consolidated Fund each year, worth more than £4 billion over the past decade. Those revenues are then allocated to public service priorities by the Government, subject to the usual parliamentary controls. That is a valuable outcome, which we need to be careful not to undermine.

I turn to the amendments that deal with devolving the Crown Estate in Wales. I fully recognise that there are now two Labour Governments in the UK. While I believe that there is greater benefit for the people of Wales and the wider United Kingdom in retaining the Crown Estate’s current form, I shall of course continue to discuss these issues with the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that Wales sees the full benefits of the Crown Estate and other forms of investment.

In response to the arguments made by noble Lords during this debate, I make a number of points. First, devolving the Crown Estate to Wales would most likely require the creation of a new entity to take on the role of the Crown Estate in Wales. This by definition would not benefit from the Crown Estate’s current substantial capability, capital and systems abilities. As my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to, this would indeed further fragment the UK energy market by adding an additional entity and, as a consequence, it would risk damaging international investor confidence in UK renewables and disrupting the National Energy System Operator’s grid connectivity reform, which is taking a whole-systems approach to the planning of generation and network infrastructure. That reform aims to create a more efficient system and reduce the waiting times for generation projects to connect to the grid. The cumulative impact of these effects would likely delay the pathway to net zero by decades.

Furthermore, the Crown Estate’s marine investments are currently 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. Let me give two examples. The first is the Crown Estate’s £50 million supply chain accelerator, which will match-fund early stage projects related to offshore wind leasing round 5, and the £50 million investment in the offshore wind evidence and change programme, which brings together government bodies, the industry and key stakeholders from across the UK to better understand environmental impacts of offshore wind.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

The Minister has explained the need for a restructure. As Scotland has devolution of this dimension already, clearly it is not impossible for people to come together after devolution for Wales, too.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I shall go on to address some of those points further in my speech.

To devolve the Crown Estate at this time would also risk jeopardising the existing pipeline of offshore wind development in the Celtic Sea planned into the 2030s. The Crown Estate’s offshore wind leasing round 5 is spread across the English and Welsh administrative boundaries in the Celtic Sea. It was launched in February this year and is expected to contribute 4.5 gigawatts of total energy capacity, or enough to power 4 million homes. In addition to energy, the extensive jobs and supply-chain requirements of round 5 will also likely deliver significant benefits for Wales and the wider UK. Lumen, an advisory firm to the Crown Estate, has estimated that manufacturing, transporting and assembling the wind farms could potentially create around 5,300 jobs and create a £1.4 billion boost for the UK economy.

As I have said, devolution would also delay UK-wide grid connectivity reform. The Crown Estate is using its data and expertise as managers of the seabed to feed into the National Energy System Operator’s new strategic spatial energy plan. 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 the round 5 offshore wind opportunity in the Celtic Sea, 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.

Secondly, the Crown Estate’s assets and interests in Wales, as compared to its assets in England, are of a fundamentally smaller magnitude, which would very likely not be commercially viable if the costs were unsupported by the wider Crown Estate portfolio. The Crown Estate, in its present form, has the ability to take a longer-term approach to its investments and spread the costs of those investments across its entire portfolio. A self-contained, single entity in Wales would not have the same ability, nor would it benefit from the expertise that the Crown Estate has developed over decades in delivering offshore wind at scale. A devolved entity would be starting from scratch, midway through a multimillion-pound commercial tendering process, at a time when the Crown Estate is undertaking critical investment in the UK’s path towards net zero.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I want to ask him specifically about what he said in relation to Welsh Government Ministers. I pressed him hard to talk to Welsh Government Ministers and consult on this matter. Nobody expects this to be done overnight or, indeed, relatively soon, given everything else and what he has said, but that seems to me the crucial thing which would release me from an obligation at least to press this on Report.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very happy to reiterate what I said: I will, of course, discuss these issues with the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales to ensure that Wales sees the full benefits of the Crown Estate and other forms of investment.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, listened to that response, as I did, with some amusement. If the line that the Minister is going to take in discussion with Welsh Ministers, who have very strong opinions on this matter, is the line that he has taken in responding to this debate, there is quite clearly not going to be a meeting of minds. We are talking about a Labour Government in Cardiff and a Labour Government in London, and this is going to be the backdrop to the politics that are running through the next few years, including the run-up to the 2026 election. I beseech the Minister to think more carefully about the way he is handling this.

The way in which the Crown Estate has been devolved in Scotland has not caused immense difficulties. They have been able to disaggregate the things that need to be disaggregated. It has been possible for the Scottish Government to get the benefits they need. The most important thing that I regard as coming from this sort of structural change is to give the Welsh Government the levers and powers—and the encouragement—to take initiatives themselves, to maximise the economic return that they can get in Wales and thereby to generate the income we need to run our government services. We do not want to be for ever and a day coming with cap in hand to the Treasury in Whitehall, begging for money.

On that point, perhaps it was the same noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, who was at the Treasury in 2010-11, when the Welsh Government had aggregated £400 million from money they had not spent on a revenue basis, in order to have a capital fund to build hospitals and schools, and the Treasury took back the whole £400 million. Being careful how they spent money at year end was a policy that the Labour Government in Wales could be proud of, but that is what the Treasury did to us. The Treasury is still, with the same game, trying to stop us taking initiatives on our own behalf to sort out our own problems.

I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, who made a persuasive argument, and I hope we return to these matters on Report. I was naturally grateful to my noble friend Baroness Smith of Llanfaes—she will possibly come in on other debates on these matters. I realise where the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, comes from on these issues. I too had a financial background; I was a financial controller in manufacturing industry and I know the responsibilities that go with finance. I also know the need to have the incentive and inducement to create the money that can then be used for the social services and all the other responsibilities of government —that is what we want to trigger and encourage in Wales.

I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for her substantial speech, which laid out her party’s view. I am glad to see that the Labour Party in the Senedd Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru stand together on this, and, indeed, a number of Conservatives there do too, which perhaps Conservative colleagues could bear in mind.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, excellently summed up the whole thing. The problem that we have had down the years when it has come to wanting to take responsibility for doing things for ourselves rather than always going cap in hand to others to bail us out is that we are told we cannot do it, or that it will cut across the unity or the way the commercial sector sees it, et cetera. We have got to be able to stand on our own two feet, whether it is in the context of the structures of government we have now or different ones. As in the case of Scotland, we want to stand on our two feet and be able to pay our way in the world, and at least take responsibility on our own shoulders for doing that.

I take the point about Northern Ireland made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and, indeed, Northern Ireland is mentioned in some of these amendments. There is, of course, a need for a co-ordinated approach, but that does not mean that we have all to be lumped together under one overarching structure. The whole point of devolution is to give power and responsibility to those who are best placed to make the most of it, and, in this context, to develop and use our own resources. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the situation in Cornwall, where there are resources that can be used and maximised for, I hope, the benefit of the people of Cornwall rather than for profits to be syphoned off elsewhere. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned our experience with coal, where we were left with the coal tips, industrial disease and all the environmental problems to clear up at our own cost, but when we try to do something about it, we are told we are not capable of doing so. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for painting her party’s viewpoint on a UK basis so clearly. Obviously, the response from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is not one I identify with; I am not entirely surprised as we have had such responses from Conservative Governments for many years. I am, however, surprised at the response from the Labour Front Bench, where we would have hoped for more.

There is currently a shortfall in the Welsh budget of some £250 million a year, which the Government are going to have to find. There is also an increasing dynamic to that figure: it will reach some £750 million by 2028. We want to be able to do something about it ourselves, so why do they not give us the tools we need to do the job when we are willing to take the responsibility to do it? I beseech the Labour Government to look at this again between now and Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, suggested, they should speak to colleagues in Cardiff and try to get a solution that enables us to do more to help ourselves, rather than telling us for ever and a day to come with a begging bowl and hope that somebody will bail us out. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments on the investment and borrowing powers in the Bill for the most part seeks to put in place limits on borrowing by the Crown Estate. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who introduced the group, and I agree with him that there should be a limit on the borrowing powers that the Government intend to extend to the Crown Estate commissioners.

I also associate myself with the comments made by both the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about the absence of the business case and the draft framework agreement. This is not the first Treasury Bill where accompanying documents have not appeared, but this is a new Government.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for his Amendment 8—I understand that the Committee will come back to his Amendment 9 separately—which seeks to probe the Government’s intention on borrowing. My noble friend made his points clearly: it is not just about this current Government, or the subsequent Government, but any future Government under whom there may need to be checks and balances in place to prevent the overleveraging of a very important group of national assets run by an independent company or organisation.

Extending the borrowing powers was planned by the previous Conservative Government, and we absolutely support the principle of the Bill. As I said on the previous group, the Crown Estate will be a very different organisation in 10 years and so has to do a lot of things very quickly. It is going to need money and there is an opportunity here. However, I am struggling to figure out how its relationships with GB Energy, on which I still lack clarity, and—one step removed—the national wealth fund, which I understand does not have as much money as was originally planned, will all fit together. Therefore, to protect the integrity of the Crown Estate it is important that a borrowing limit is put in place.

Previously, the Crown Estate commissioners were constrained by the 1961 Act, but we support other noble Lords who have spoken today on considering what the mechanism might be. Different noble Lords have proposed different mechanisms. I appreciate that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, picked a number, and I accept that that might be an outcome, but of course it is not really inflation-proofed; it would be in the Bill and therefore it might not be helpful in due course. I went away and thought about having 2% of total assets as the limit. If one looks at the portfolio as it stands for 2022-23—£15.5 billion—one sees that a 2% cap would represent a cash limit of around £310 million. That would be a more generous cap than that proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but it is broadly equivalent to the “hundreds of millions”—I think that was the phrase—envisaged by the Minister. We are just trying to be helpful here, by putting a statutory footing underneath the Minister’s intention in any event.

Another thought I had was not only doing this as a percentage of total assets but giving Parliament some sort of say over a five-year horizon. I think this was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, was making, but in a separate way. I was not actually aware that borrowing forecasts appear in documents relating to the Crown Estate—maybe they do, and in any event it would be worthwhile to have a look at them. There is a significant loss of parliamentary oversight in this Bill. There is very little parliamentary oversight at all of the Crown Estate anyway, despite it holding some of our national assets, but the Bill takes even more of that parliamentary oversight away, which I will come to in a subsequent group.

I believe that there is an opportunity to add some oversight, and therefore I came up with the idea that Parliament should be required to pass regulations that set out, by year, a five-year borrowing cap. Parliament could do that every year quite simply. That would obviously give flexibility, and it would enable debates to happen about the Crown Estate and whether it was heading in the right direction. The Treasury could be challenged about its involvement—apparently there is a transparent relationship between the Treasury and the Crown Estate, although I have found no notes relating to that which would indicate such transparency. That was my other idea.

There are many ways that the House might decide on Report to put a limit on borrowings. I am happy to hear the views of the Minister; I very much hope that he will appreciate that many noble Lords are trying to help.

Briefly, my Amendment 10 picks up the point made by my noble friend Lord Howard about the situation where the Treasury is going to be lending to the Crown Estate, and that will be down as an asset, and then that money could circulate back and go into day-to-day government spending. To me, that seems slightly odd. It would be good to get some sort of commitment to ensure that that sort of mechanism is somehow broken.

I am grateful to all noble Lords, especially my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I might come to his element about additionality when we come on to the reporting of the investment strategy of the Crown Estate in a later group.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from all noble Lords on this group of amendments. I recognise that the issue of controls on borrowing is an important consideration, and I hope to offer some reassurance. I agree with very many of the points raised during this debate, in particular that controls on borrowing by the Crown Estate must be in place. I assure noble Lords that such controls will be set out in the memorandum of understanding that will be in place between the Crown Estate and the Treasury, and will be set at a loan to value ratio not to exceed 25%.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

Is the Minister saying that it will be an MoU rather than a framework agreement, or are they the same thing by another name?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

They are the same thing by another name.

By way of background, as the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, said, the Bill we are considering was conceived under the previous Government, and it was continued by this Government as we share the same objective to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and to invest. The default starting position I inherited was that the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury could contain commercially sensitive information and would therefore not be published.

I listened carefully to views expressed by many noble Lords at Second Reading that it should in fact be published. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke particularly persuasively on this issue, and I gave her the commitment at Second Reading that it would be published in draft before November. I can confirm to noble Lords that it will, as a result, definitely be published before Report. In hindsight, though, I recognise that I could have reversed the position I inherited sooner and that this would have been more helpful to noble Lords considering this group of amendments. I am also grateful for the conversation I had last week with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, which I found informative and persuasive. I thank him for his time. I believe the question is not whether such controls on borrowing should exist but what those controls are and whether they should be set out in statute or in the memorandum of understanding.

I will briefly recap the purpose of this legislation. The Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment opportunities, but to compete effectively, and to invest in order to maximise its returns to the Exchequer, it needs the ability to borrow, as its competitors currently can. That is the purpose of this legislation, and we should consider the controls we wish to place on its ability to borrow in the context of not undermining that objective. It is important to note that any borrowing by the Crown Estate will be for investment in activities that will drive increases in revenues, therefore increasing the returns it provides to the Government.

The Government’s strong intention is for the Crown Estate to borrow at levels that are proportionate to the nature of the business. I must emphasise that the powers proposed by the Bill are both targeted and measured. The Crown Estate will not be permitted to borrow without the consent of the Treasury. This is a strong safeguard and ensures that borrowing by the Crown Estate will not be uncontrolled. Furthermore, as I set out at the beginning of my comments, the memorandum of understanding will set a loan-to-value ratio not to exceed 25%. It will also set out other operating parameters in regard to the Crown Estate’s borrowing ability.

I turn to Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 8 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere of Norbiton, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. These amendments each seek to cap the level of borrowing out of the National Loans Fund by the Crown Estate in specific ways. Amendment 3 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, would restrict borrowing out of the National Loans Fund to no more than 2% of the value of total assets of the Crown Estate. Measuring 2% against Crown Estate assets would currently equate to £354 million. Amendment 2 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would limit Crown Estate borrowing out of the National Loans Fund to no more than £150 million, while similarly Amendment 8 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, would restrict borrowing out of the National Loans Fund to no more than 10% of capital and reserves, which on current figures equates to approximately £1.5 billion. So there is a wide range of views on the specific size of the limit. Based on current asset values, the proposed 25% loan-to-value parameter would equate to approximately £3 billion.

The principal issue here is whether a specific cap should be set out in the Bill. The Government’s considered view is that such a limit should not exist in statute. The purpose of the Bill is to afford the Crown Estate greater flexibility so that it can continue to deliver on its success, support wider national policy objectives and generate maximum returns for the Exchequer. As such, the measures proposed in the Bill are intended to endure without further amendment for many decades to come. For this reason, the Government’s view is that controls on borrowing are best set outside primary legislation, as is the case for some other public bodies with borrowing powers.

The controls on borrowing for the Crown Estate will instead be set out in the underpinning memorandum of understanding agreed with the Treasury, which I have referred to previously. I remind noble Lords that the fundamental duties of the Crown Estate commissioners, and their general duty, will remain to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the return obtained from it, with due regard to the requirements of good management. Excessive borrowing would not be consistent with this duty.

We should also be mindful of what an appropriate maximum level of debt for an organisation such as the Crown Estate may be. It has an asset base in excess of £15 billion, overwhelmingly in the form of land and property. Included in the Crown Estate’s original business case, which I have also committed to publish before Report, is information on the loan-to-value ratio of the Crown Estate’s peers in the UK real estate sector. At the most conservative end of this scale is the Duchy of Cornwall, with a loan-to-value ratio of 14%. By contrast, a £150 million limit on Crown Estate borrowing would equate to a loan-to-value ratio of less than 1%.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

As the noble Lord has spoken to the amendment, the Government may reply if they so wish.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I very much endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Humphreys. I too believe that this is another opportunity to make sure that there is a far stronger voice for Wales, so let us seize it and use that as a template for how the Crown Estate goes forward.

I wanted to focus more on a couple of other issues. In a sense, I see a linkage between the comments made by my noble friend Lord Russell suggesting that, by forgoing receiving lease income and instead taking an ownership tranche in a whole series of new energy projects, the long-term income to the Crown Estate and to England and Wales would be significantly larger than the much shallower and shorter-term benefit of charging lease rent. That relates to the same kind of issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. Please could the Minister sort that problem out? This really is an unfair situation, and it will just take a Minister to absolutely slap his hand on the table and get it done.

In both cases there is a tendency, which I noticed at Second Reading, for Members of this House to think of the Crown Estate as some sort of cuddly organisation. It may be very generous, and if you read its annual report you can see that it does wonderful things for local communities and talks incredibly sympathetically about disadvantaged people, but when it operates as a commercial entity, my goodness, it is one of the most aggressive commercial entities that anyone could run into—and when you say that within the property sector, you are really saying something. It is infected by the same position adopted by many other property companies, which is to go for very short-term profit and to forget about the long term.

Everything that we hear from the Government is about patient capital—and, if you are going to look for the long term, surely you follow the pattern proposed by my noble friend Lord Russell, which says that, over the long term, you will do much better if you take some serious equity positions and perhaps make an in-kind contribution to a project, rather than charging rent over a relatively short-term period. If it acts in the same way as a commercial entity, surely in its commercial activities the Crown Estate should be treated as a commercial entity and therefore have to live up to the law that applies to other commercial entities operating in that same sector, and not to have an out because of its peculiar status, sitting somewhere between public and private. If that were done, the noble Lord, Lord Young, would not be asking why on earth it was not living up to the terms of the law for other commercial entities in dealing with leaseholders and freehold. It has to be recognised for what it is, and there are changes, consequently, that the Government may wish to make—first to create long-term thinking but also to make sure that, when it operates on a commercial basis, it is subject to the same regulations and requirements as other similar commercial properties.

I want to address very briefly the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere. It is wonderful the change that comes when a body moves into opposition —the road to Damascus. The number of times I have asked a Conservative Government: when we have appointments, could we please have pre-appointment scrutiny by a committee of this House? In fact, I may even have requested them of the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, concerning various appointments at the Treasury—I cannot quite remember, there have been so many over the years. I am so glad of this Damascene conversion. We now have a Conservative party that is also supporting pre-appointment scrutiny. I do believe that pre-appointment scrutiny was often the Labour Party position. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, is shaking his head but I think I may have a longer memory. I have certainly heard it from other Members, both on the Treasury Select Committee when I was in the other House, and on the Economic Affairs Committee. Pre-appointment scrutiny does make sense as a general underlying principle, and it would seem to make sense for the four new commissioners that are to be added to the existing eight.

Like others, I am really curious to know: going from eight to 12, they say, is good practice, but why? What will they do? Where will they come from? I can perfectly well see that this is a great opportunity for regional representation, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, touched on a very important point: we now look at most boards and want to see clearly that they understand that the ethics and attitudes of today require inclusivity; that it is not just some token item somewhere in an ethics statement by the company, but that someone is actually taking responsibility, based on knowledge, at a very senior level within the decision-making structure, and implementing that role. Here is an opportunity to seize that, and I hope very much that the Government will do so.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere and Lady Smith, the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Holmes and Lord Wigley, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising these very important issues concerning the governance and management of the Crown Estate. I should emphasise again that the intention of the Bill is to afford the Crown Estate greater flexibility to ensure that it can successfully compete in commercial markets to deliver maximum benefits for the nation.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Vere, Lady Smith and Lady Kramer, asked about the number of commissioners. This change reflects the growing diversity of the Crown Estate’s business and will ensure that the Crown Estate can meet best practice standards for modern corporate governance. This will help to broaden the diversity of the board and provide more breadth of expertise and capacity to enable the commissioners to operate more effectively in the constantly evolving business environment. The Bill provides for a maximum number of 12 commissioners, up from eight at present. However, within this limit, the exact number of commissioners serving at any one time will be in the light of advice from the Crown Estate’s board on where it considers additional board-level expertise would be beneficial to the business.

I will start by addressing the issue of the appointment of commissioners to the Crown Estate’s board, reflecting on Amendments 12 and 22, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Vere and Lady Smith. Amendment 12, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, would require scrutiny by the Treasury Select Committee or any successor committee of all future proposed commissioner appointments, including the chair, before any appointment can be made. Let me first emphasise that all Crown Estate commissioner appointments are governed by the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The code is clear that commissioners must be selected based on expertise and experience.

As I have previously set out, the Crown Estate operates independently of the King and of government. Affording Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise potential appointments before they are made would significantly alter the appointments process, in a way that would change the relationship between the Crown Estate, government and Parliament. The Cabinet Office’s existing guidance on pre-appointment scrutiny is clear that it should apply only where posts play a key role in the regulation of actions by the Government, protecting and safeguarding the public’s rights and interests in relation to decisions and actions of the Government, or roles where organisations have a direct major impact on public life. It is the Government’s view, as it was of the previous Government, that the Crown Estate’s commissioner posts do not fit these criteria and that it would therefore be inappropriate to require pre-appointment scrutiny.

It should also be noted that pre-appointment scrutiny of roles elsewhere in public life is limited largely to the role of chairs. Therefore, even if the Cabinet Office’s criteria were satisfied, it would be disproportionate and unusual for all commissioner appointments to be subject to such scrutiny. In addition, requiring pre-appointment scrutiny for non-executive commissioner posts, which are not high profile or public facing, may deter some candidates from applying. As I have set out, this would be inconsistent with existing pre-scrutiny arrangements, which are generally restricted to chair positions. Consequently, this might put at risk securing candidates of the necessary quality and calibre to the board and present a more fundamental risk to the overall management of the Crown Estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I am grateful for what he said. Can he confirm that he has not ruled out amending the draft memorandum of understanding in the way that I proposed?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I would like to be helpful to the noble Lord. I am told that the memorandum of understanding deals exclusively with borrowing powers, so it may not be the most appropriate vehicle to insert that into.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, I have a very simple question to ask him. We have had a very interesting debate, and I have understood much of it, but who does the Crown Estate—and therefore the Duchy of Cornwall—report to? Is it the Government or Parliament? Who controls them, or are they a law unto themselves? In spite of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I do not think the King comes into it.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is a very good question, and I shall endeavour to find the answer and write to my noble friend.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords. That was an excellent debate and a lot of ground was covered. My favourite line of the debate came from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She put her finger on it when she said that the Crown Estate was not a “cuddly organisation”. It does not need to be—it does not report to anybody, apart from its commissioners, and that is at the heart of the issue that I think many noble Lords are grappling with. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was pleased with my recent conversion to pre-appointment scrutiny. I cannot guarantee that that will continue. I understand a new leader is in the offing in my party, so who knows what will happen?

The amendment that I put down was a useful way of probing some thinking around why the number of commissioners had to go from eight to 12. The response from the Minister was the sort of management jargon I used to learn at business school about 25 years ago. I am not much the wiser, but I will go back to Hansard and study his words carefully. Pre-appointment scrutiny, for the chair in particular, would be a very small but important change, particularly as we are dealing not with a cuddly organisation but with one which happens to own and manage some very important and valuable national assets. Therein lies the tension, and that is my concern.

Turning to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Young, it was a forensic analysis. I am sure many noble Lords learned much from it, not least how to structure a really good argument, which has stumped the Minister. I am pleased that he is stumped because I am sure that he will go away and look at it—indeed, I implore him to do so, such that we do not have to return to this, at length, on Report.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Holmes feels satisfied by the Minister’s response to his amendments. On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I presume that both he and I are pleased that the Crown Estate can already do what he wants it to do. I agree with him that it sounds completely obvious.

I am afraid that I am not happy with the Minister’s response on the question of disposals; in fact, I am probably more concerned by his response than I was beforehand. I am not sure that the nation would expect the complexion of the assets held by the Crown Estate to significantly change, so we may well come back to that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group on the objectives and duties of the Crown Estate. Many of the amendments relate to climate change and nature, and many noble Lords have spoken who are much more knowledgeable about these topics than I am, so I do not propose to add further to those points. As set out in today’s list, one must follow the rules, but I look forward to hearing the thoughts of the Minister on that.

My Amendments 37A to 37C look at another important aspect of potential disruption caused by investments by the Crown Estate, which is to local economies and national economies when it comes to shipping. I am looking to the Minister to reassure me and your Lordships’ House that very important local and national economic activities are considered appropriately by the Crown Estate, and that it does not look at what it does in a narrow and short-term way but thinks about making the cake bigger for everybody over the longer term.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made several points about the impact on commercial fishing: it should be quantified, consulted on and mitigated where possible, and I say the same for commercial shipping. Some 90% of our goods arrive by sea, and ports are often quite specialised in the goods they handle. Sadly, you cannot move a port, so you have to be quite careful not to obstruct well-established shipping lanes and ensure that the proximity of offshore developments does not cause excessive risk to vessels, particular larger vessels, were they ever to get into trouble. Comments on that would be greatly appreciated.

I did not put down an amendment on this, but it is strongly related. Where ports want to expand and they are surrounded by Crown Estate land, the balance of power is sometimes a little one sided. I would like some reassurance that the Crown Estate will act not only in its self-interest for short-term gain but will think about the longer term and growing the pie for the whole economy and the Crown Estate within that. I do not propose to add anything further at this point, and I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for their powerful arguments made during this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Teverson and Lord Young, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Young and Lady Vere, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which all seek to make changes to the Crown Estate’s objectives and duties.

Before I move on, I will address two specific questions from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which I may not pick up in my subsequent remarks. He asked about conflicts of interest with leasing rounds. Under UK habitats regulations, the Crown Estate is deemed to be a competent authority for offshore wind leasing rounds. As such, it has a legal obligation to carry out a plan-level habitats regulation assessment for planned activities such as an offshore wind leasing round. It could be challenged through legal action if it fails to do this in line with the prescribed requirements.

The noble Lord also asked about the marine delivery route map’s interaction with the offshore wind report. The marine delivery route map gives the holistic context across sectors and sea users to support and inform individual sector delivery planning, while the offshore wind report offers technical insights and data, with both working in concert to ensure that offshore land development is efficient, sustainable and aligned with national and environmental goals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also asked about a point of clarification. I will go away and check the questions she raises. Obviously, I apologise if I have inadvertently confused the two things she mentioned.

Amendments 14 and 28, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Teverson, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, seek to introduce new duties for the Crown Estate to protect the condition of the seabed. Amendment 14 would require the Crown Estate commissioners to take steps to protect the seabed, which forms part of the Crown Estate, and would include a prohibition on all activities, business practices, leisure pursuits and other actions that permanently or temporarily cause damage to the seabed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I make this comment as a former board member of the Marine Management Organisation. The 2010 regulations, in particular, which have come through Europe, have been very ineffective, as has much on the Minister’s list. Hence, I believe it important that we put the responsibility down to the owner, rather than to some high-level legislation and regulations that departments have not paid a lot of attention to in the past.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord is much more expert in those things than I am. I take what he says seriously.

The decision to grant leases is informed by advice from the relevant statutory nature conservation body, either via the statutory consent process or, where appropriate, direct engagement. It can include enhancement requirements. Statutory nature conservation bodies are responsible for providing advice to government and regulators on the management, monitoring and assessment of marine protected areas. For those activities that are deemed exempt from statutory consents, the Crown Estate requires applicants to demonstrate that advice has been sought from relevant environmental bodies to inform their decision on leasing.

More broad protections, which would prohibit even temporary damage anywhere on the UK territorial seabed owned by the Crown Estate, would also cause major disruption to many critical marine sectors. These include, for example, offshore renewable energy, which requires the burial of power cables in the seabed to transport energy to shore; the laying of subsea and telecom cables, which carry 99% of all intercontinental data traffic for the UK; the UK’s ports, harbours, marinas and shipping channels within UK waters that require dredging for the creation and maintenance of navigable depths; and the manufacturing industry, which relies on marine aggregates, which are used, for instance, on major construction projects, beach replenishment and coastal protection schemes across the UK. The Government therefore consider these amendments to be unnecessary given the existing statutory protections and the Crown Estate’s existing practices.

I turn next to Amendments 37A, 37B and 37C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, which would all place new duties in respect of granting licences to access the seabed. Amendments 37A and 37B would prohibit the Crown Estate from granting new licences to access the seabed unless it has considered the impact of those licences on commercial fishing and commercial shipping. While the Government support the spirit behind these amendments, the Bill will not directly impact how much commercial fishing or shipping takes place in areas managed by the Crown Estate, nor is the Crown Estate responsible for the regulation of these sectors.

The Crown Estate collaborates extensively with industry stakeholders, statutory nature conservation bodies, environmental non-governmental organisations and marine licensing bodies to ensure activities on the seabed are conducted responsibly and enable a restored and thriving marine environment. A recent blog post from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, for example, noted on engagement with the Crown Estate ahead of the offshore wind leasing round 5 in the Celtic Sea that the

“process succeeded in identifying and avoiding the places where it would be most harmful to the fishing industry to see turbines installed. The cooperation between the Crown Estate and fishermen was unprecedented and the outcome was a positive one”.

The Crown Estate has also invested £50 million in the offshore wind evidence and change programme, which includes several initiatives to consider and support the fishing industry. I will give two examples. The first is the fisheries sensitivity mapping and displacement modelling project, which identifies areas of offshore wind development that present risks to the fishing industry to try to reduce the likelihood of conflicts between the two sectors. The second example is the ecological effects of floating offshore wind research programme, which focuses on understanding how marine ecosystems will react to the planned large-scale expansion of floating offshore wind in UK waters over the next decade. The goal of this programme is to change the way the Crown Estate deploys floating offshore wind on a large scale, ensuring nature recovery and enabling co-existence with other sea users, including fisheries.

Amendment 37C would prohibit the Crown Estate from granting new licences to access the seabed unless it has considered the impact of those licences on coastal communities. Coastal communities are already a primary consideration of any investment decision by the Crown Estate. For example, it has specifically designed the leasing process for its 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 wind farms. Tender bidders are required to think innovatively and constructively about how their developments can create a legacy of healthier, more resilient, fairer, more vibrant and more prosperous communities which stretch beyond the lifetime of the wind farm leases for the benefit of generations to come. Commitments made during the tender process will be monitored, reported on and enforced throughout the lifetime of the relevant round 5 developments.

We could of course make this an explicit duty for the Crown Estate in legislation, but if we did that then there are many other points we have debated today that could also be added as statutory duties. As I said earlier, a key purpose of the 1961 Act was to repeal various detailed statutory provisions that had built up over 150 years previously, to avoid the Crown Estate having to work through a maze of requirements for each investment decision.

I turn next to Amendments 15, 17 and 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. These amendments seek to create new objectives for, or impose new duties on, the Crown Estate. Specifically, Amendment 15 would require the Crown Estate to seek to prioritise the objectives of UK food security and to support the development and promotion of new technologies, including artificial intelligence, in the managing and turning to account of Crown Estate land.

Amendment 17 would require the commissioners to publish a review assessing how Crown Estate assets can be deployed to support nature prescribing. The amendment would also require the commissioners to work with NHS England and devolved counterparts to enable the Crown Estate’s nature assets to form part of a major UK-wide nature prescribing scheme.

Amendment 29 would require the commissioners, when exercising their duty in Section 1(3) of the 1961 Act, to act in a way best calculated to further the achievement of sustainable development and to seek to manage assets in a way likely to contribute to the promotion or improvement of economic development, regeneration, and social and environmental well-being.

Before I speak to these amendments it is worth reiterating that the Crown Estate is a commercial business, independent from government, that operates for profit and competes in the marketplace for investment opportunities, yet it is currently restricted in its ability to do so. As I have already set out, the Government believe that it is right that the Crown Estate continues to operate as a commercial enterprise. A key purpose of the 1961 Act, as I have noted, was to repeal various detailed statutory provisions that had built up over 150 years previously, which were hampering the effective management of the estate. Since then, the Crown Estate has shown itself to be a trusted and successful organisation with a proven track record in effective management. That is a valuable outcome, which I stress we need to be careful not to undermine.

This track record includes its commitment to enable the development of new net-zero technologies and to invest in artificial intelligence to enhance its habitat and environmental monitoring system. The Crown Estate has also made it clear that it is prioritising food security alongside nature recovery and enabling the diversification of income for its tenant farmers. The investment and borrowing powers proposed in this Bill will allow for even greater investment in these areas by the Crown Estate.

The Government believe that the Crown Estate’s existing duties give it a clear focus, leading to a consistently significant return to the Exchequer to support the funding of public services. At the same time, the Crown Estate is already able to, and does, focus on activities which also closely align with wider national needs, including energy security and sustainable economic growth. As a public body, the Crown Estate seeks to work with the grain of prevailing government policy.

I turn next to Amendments 25 and 30, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Amendment 25 would create a new duty for the Crown Estate commissioners in the exercise of their functions to take all reasonable steps to contribute to the achievement of targets under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; the achievement of biodiversity targets under Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021; and to adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change as identified in the most recent report under Section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008. This amendment would also require the Crown Estate to include conditions in all seabed leases for the leaseholder to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

Amendment 30 would create a new nature recovery duty. This would require the Crown Estate to take steps to embed nature into spatial planning and seabed leasing, allocate space for nature recovery in all projects and invest in clean energy projects.

Before I explain the Government’s position, let me express strong support for the intention behind these amendments. It is right that the public and private sectors make every contribution they can to help achieve our climate change targets, and the Crown Estate should continue to be a national trailblazer in this regard. The Crown Estate has committed to becoming a net-zero carbon business by 2030, aligning with the 1.5 degrees trajectory, and will prioritise activities which help enable a reduction in 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.

On the biodiversity targets in the Environment Act, the Crown Estate is committed to delivering a measurable increase in biodiversity by 2030. It will publish its delivery plan to meet this goal next year, which will include commitments to restore habitats in line with targets in the Environment Act. As I have already noted, all leases granted by the Crown Estate for development that affects the seabed already require the leaseholder to have the necessary statutory consents in place before development can begin.

The Crown Estate also published its approach on nature recovery last week, where it has committed to delivering increased biodiversity, to protect and restore freshwater, marine and coastal systems, and to increase social well-being benefits from nature. However, as I have already set out, the reforms being introduced in this Bill are not intended to alter the fundamental statutory basis of the Crown Estate as a commercial business independent from government.

The commissioners operate under a clear commercial objective, as set out in the 1961 Act, to maintain and enhance the value of the estate. I know that some noble Lords take a different view as to how the Crown Estate should operate, but it is the Government’s view that the existing statutory commercial focus, coupled with adherence to environmental and other nature requirements as set out in other legislation, as well as the need in the 1961 Act for the commissioners to have due regard to the requirements of good management, remains the best approach. One of the functions of the Crown Estate is to return its profits to the Exchequer each year, and it has returned a combined total of more than £4 billion in the last decade. This is used to fund the priorities of the Government of the day, which currently include spending on policy that helps achieve our climate change goals.

The more the Crown Estate’s core purpose in legislation is expanded, particularly with additional duties or objectives that may unnecessarily complicate, conflict with or risk compromising the achievement of that core commercial objective, the harder—

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I know the Minister is anxious to get on to the dinner break business, but I think he misunderstands exactly what we are saying by asking for biodiversity and climate change target achievement to be included. The reality is that we want the Crown Estate commissioners to be able to walk, talk and chew gum. They have to be able to be smart enough to deliver on the commercial and economic imperatives that the Minister has been absolutely clear about—he has repeated them several times—and do the biodiversity and net zero delivery at the same time. That is doable but not if, as the Minister has just done, he continues to say and reinforce for the Crown Estate commissioners that their primary purpose is a commercial one, because that will always take precedence.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention. With the greatest respect, it is not a lack of understanding; it is just a slight difference of opinion. As I said, I have great sympathy with the motives underlying this amendment, but the Government would seek to achieve them in a slightly different way from my noble friend.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way; I will make one final intervention. I welcome very much what he said about biodiversity and the wish to do that, but he has not mentioned biodiversity net gain. It is a government policy to introduce marine biodiversity net gain. Will that apply? As one of the co-developers to the Crown Estate, will they be responsible for that when they implement that policy?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will be completely honest and say I do not know the answer to that question. I will find out and let the noble Lord know.

I hope these explanations have been helpful and that the noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Teverson and Lord Young, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Young, will feel able not to press their amendments as a result.

School Fees: VAT

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest as chairman of governors of Brentwood School and as president of the Institute of Boarding and the Boarding Schools’ Association.

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

My Lords, the implication of imposing VAT on school fees with effect from 1 January 2025 will be to raise revenue to fund the Government’s objective that every child has access to high-quality education, including the 94% of children who are educated in the state sector. It will help to fund 3,000 new nurseries, the rolling out of breakfast clubs to all primary schools and the recruitment of 6,500 new teachers.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

As the noble Lord is a distinguished economist, must he not acknowledge that the impact on state schools of this vindictive policy will be meaningless, with 6,500 extra teachers across 20,000 schools in England adding just one-third of one teacher to each school? Yet the impact on children at independent schools will be enormous, with the losers being those who have to leave half way through the year because their parents cannot afford to pay, the children of service families who rely on boarding schools so that their parents can defend us, and children with special needs who are exceptionally vulnerable. Their lives will be upended for nothing—all pain and no gain. The Prime Minister accepted £20,000 in free accommodation to ensure that his son’s schooling was not interrupted and talks about party before country. Why will he not extend that courtesy to other children and put them before party, and either scrap or delay this shambolic, shameful policy?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not accept in any way the noble Lord’s characterisation of this policy. This is a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people. As far as the state sector goes, to the extent that pupils move at all, the number of pupils who may switch schools represents a very small proportion of overall pupil numbers in the state sector and is likely to be less than 0.5% of total UK school pupils, of whom there are more than 9 million.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I wonder if I might press the Minister on SEND pupils. The majority of SEND pupils, who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Black, do not have an education, health and care plan, and therefore there is a genuine worry that this policy might mean that their education is interrupted. What mitigating factors are His Majesty’s Government putting in place to ensure that this particularly vulnerable group is supported?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am of course aware that this is an area of specific concern, as was said. Our proposed policy ensures that children with acute needs that can be met only in the private sector, as set out in an EHCP, will continue to be supported through their local authority and will not be impacted by this policy change. Very many private schools will take steps to absorb a proportion, or all, of the new VAT liability, so there may be no increases in fees under such circumstances.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Will my noble friend the Minister remind the House of what happened when we lost office in 2010? The first thing the Government did was to cut the better schools initiative and the plans to improve schooling for the 90% who go to state schools. Will he ask the other side whether they will perhaps speak as often for the 90% in state schools as they seem to want to for the 6% in private schools?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for making those points, and I agree with what she said. The Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are determined to drive up standards in schools serving the overwhelming majority of children in this country, so that they may receive the opportunities that too often have been the preserve of the rich and the lucky.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister reassure the House that the new VAT measures will not damage the UK’s ability to produce world-leading performers in music and dance? He may not know that for exceptional talent to succeed on the global stage it needs to enter professional training at a very young age and at a level of intensity that the state sector cannot provide. These schools are far from the independent schools stereotype. They do not have large endowments or wealthy parent bodies, and they recruit entirely on talent, regardless of ability to pay. Can the Government ensure that the new measures do not create a scenario in which only the most advantaged children can have the opportunities that their talent deserves?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s insight and expertise on this matter. In answer to her question, that is absolutely what we will seek. As she knows, where parents are paying fees for their child to attend a private music or dance school they will pay VAT on those fees following this change. The music and dance scheme funds talented pupils from low-income families to attend such specialist schools, and we will monitor closely any impact of these policy changes and consider any changes to this scheme at the forthcoming spending review.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, this is a deeply damaging and mean measure, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, said. It is unlikely to hurt wealthy parents but it will hit those with limited means trying to do their best for their children with special needs or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, with specialist skills. Please will the Government at least defer to September to avoid the trauma of mid-term changes, which I am quite sure no educationalist would ever have agreed—I do not know who came up with this policy for a January date? Can the Minister say whether the allowances for children of military personnel will be increased to cover the extra cost for them?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The answer to the noble Baroness’s first question is no and the answer to her second question is that that is a matter for the spending review. I disagree fundamentally with her characterisation of this policy. I want to see excellence in education for children in places like where I grew up, whose parents will never be able to afford to pay for their education. They are every bit as ambitious for their children as any other parent.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that any gains from this policy will accrue to the education budget and that any shortfall will be met by the education budget? Will he commit to sharing with this House the OBR’s impact assessment of the number of pupils moving from the private sector to the state sector and the number where the overall policy would be at a fiscal cost to the Exchequer?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

There were several questions there. Yes, this money will go to the state sector; I do not accept that there will be any loss from this policy; and yes, the OBR will publish the impact assessment alongside the Budget.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that, over the years of the Tory Government, education was treated shamefully? We have lost huge amounts of money. I recognise that 6,500 teachers is not the number we need, but it is certainly a first step in the right direction. Will the Minister confirm that, far from being an unacceptable policy, we need this policy to make sure that the 94% of children who are in our state schools have a fair crack of the whip?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for those points; I fundamentally agree with her. As I said, this is a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people, helping the overwhelming majority of children in state schools.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, there are key differences between the education systems in Scotland and England. We have a different curriculum and exam structure; different term dates, starting dates and starting ages; and different arrangements for teachers’ pay and pensions. Most importantly, CSPs are not the same as EHPs. A CSP is not required for a child to go to a special school or receive extra support. Given these fundamental differences, can the Minister share the impact of this policy on the education system in Scotland, given that, because of devolution, the Government cannot guarantee that any consequential funding given to Scotland would actually be spent on the education sector there?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her insight on those points. I can confirm that the final policy design of this measure will be announced at the time of the Budget, alongside a tax information and impact note, which will include details of the Government’s assessment of the expected impacts.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that it is universally accepted that you can get access to an education, health and care plan only if you have money to afford lawyers to get through the process, or at least to get through it fast? If so, are the Government not saying to people that they can get the money only if they have resources in the first place? Does this not contradict a lot of what has been said?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not accept that in any way, shape or form. The whole point is that you should have access to high-quality education whether or not you have the money in the first place.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Bull, the Government’s dance and drama award scheme enables a small number of specialist providers to offer higher-level qualifications, at levels 5 and 6, to some of the country’s most talented performing arts students, many of whom might otherwise be unable to access such training. What reassurance can the Minister give that these providers will not be affected by the proposed VAT imposition, which might force some of them to swithdraw completely from the scheme? What progress has been made in the discussions on this issue, including with the Treasury, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, in the debate on 5 September?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I said earlier, we will monitor closely any impact of these policies on the scheme mentioned by the noble Lord. The right time to consider changes to the scheme is at the forthcoming spending review.

UK Economy: Capital Gains Tax

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so draw your Lordships’ attention to my registered interests in this area.

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

My Lords, there is speculation ahead of every Budget, but the Government’s priorities for the economy are clear. We are committed to restoring growth to our economy after years of stagnation by fixing the foundations and securing investment in our country’s future; we are committed to keeping the promises we set out in our manifesto; and we are committed to rebuilding the public finances, including by addressing the £22 billion black hole we inherited from the previous Government.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Well, the Government have managed to unite Alastair Campbell, the British Chambers of Commerce and me in identifying the damage that this delay is doing to the UK economy. If evidence is needed, entrepreneurs are leaving not in their droves but in their thousands because they are so worried about the potential impact of a rise in capital gains tax. The Chancellor has specifically ruled out certain increases. Could the Government not rule out specifically, for example, the rumoured demise of business property relief on inheritance tax, because that is hanging over the market at the moment, causing great anxiety to family companies and is an enormous cloud on the ability of companies to raise money on the AIM market?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As set out in our manifesto, we are committed to not increase taxes on working people. This is why we will not increase their national insurance, the basic higher or additional rates of income tax or VAT. I know the noble Lord would not expect me to comment on speculation about any other specific taxes, but we must rebuild our public finances to ensure economic stability, including by addressing the £22 billion black hole—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The £22 billion black hole that was concealed by the previous Government. That will involve difficult decisions on spending, welfare and tax.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, there seems to be hilarity on the Benches opposite every time my noble friend refers to the £22 billion black hole. Could he perhaps remind the House of the grotesque irresponsibility of the way in which the previous Government made spending announcements without making sure that the funding was there? What will the Government do about it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House of that fact. Members of the party opposite appear to have forgotten who was in power for the past 14 years. They appear to have forgotten who created the mess that this Government now need to clear up. They appear to have forgotten who created the £22 billion black hole in the public finances in the first place. They appear to have forgotten about the £6 billion overspend on the asylum system, the £3 billion of uncosted commitments on road and rail projects, and the fact that they overspent the reserve three times over just three months into the financial year.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, during the Conservative years, capital gains tax was held in the mid range of developed economies, but having an attractive rate, frankly, did nothing to stimulate either business investment or productivity growth. Could the Minister assure us that any increase in capital gains tax will be in the context of a credible and powerful strategy for economic growth, including both an industrial strategy and an ambitious plan for infrastructure?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Obviously, I am happy to confirm that growth is our number one priority. That is exactly what the forthcoming Budget will be about: fixing the foundations of our economy so we can deliver on our mandate for better public services and higher living standards. Investment is absolutely crucial to that, which is why we are committed to removing the barriers to private investment and also to measures such as the industrial strategy that the noble Baroness mentions.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, it is critical that we help first-time home buyers for a multitude of reasons. Please can the Minister confirm that stamp duty for these buyers will remain at current levels?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows full well that I am not able to comment on speculation about any specific tax. What I will say is that we must rebuild our public finances, including by addressing the £22 billion black hole inherited from the previous Government.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

It is tempting to suggest a tax on black holes. I am aware that a large number of people are pulling out the 25% tax-free cash from their pension for fear that will be reduced or made difficult. How do we square that with encouraging pension funds to invest in British industry?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to say that investment is absolutely crucial to our plans for the economy—which is why we are absolutely committed to removing the barriers to private sector investment—but he knows I cannot comment on speculation about any other specific taxes.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, research shows that taxing capital gains at lower rates than wages does not boost investment in productive assets. It fuels unfairness and tax abuse, as the well-off seek to convert income to capital gains. Is the Minister aware that taxing capital gains at the same rate as wages can raise between £12 billion and £15 billion a year and also reduce tax abuse? If so, when can we expect to see the policy change?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his expertise on this matter. At the risk of repeating myself, he knows I would not be able to comment on speculation about other specific taxes, but we must rebuild our public finances, including by addressing the £22 billion black hole inherited from the previous Government.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister define a “working person”?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

A working person is someone who goes out to work.

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My Lords, given that HMRC’s own analysis shows that a 10% increase in capital gains tax is likely to lead to a £2 billion reduction in the amount it raises, can the noble Lord confirm that he will not look to increase any taxes where the net result is further costs to the public purse?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As set out in our manifesto, we are committed to not increasing taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase national insurance, basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, or VAT. I know the noble Lord would not expect me to comment on speculation about other specific taxes.

[Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that uncertainty has grown in recent years as a result of us having two Budgets every year, in effect. Will he give an assurance that in future we will have only one Budget a year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, we have given that commitment. There will be one autumn Budget every year.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, the Financial Times with a freedom of information request asked for details of the so-called £22 billion black hole. The Chancellor and the Treasury have declined to reply. Can the Minister please share with us the details of this £22 billion black hole?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me another opportunity to remind the House of the £22 billion black hole that was concealed by the previous Government. I am grateful to her for letting me remind the House whose mess this was in the first place that this Government now need to clear up. I am sure all noble Lords will be interested to hear that the £22 billion black hole consists of a £6 billion overspend on the asylum system that the previous Government concealed from the Office for Budget Responsibility and from this Parliament. It consists of £3 billion of uncosted commitments on road and rail projects. They overspent the reserve three times over just three months into the financial year and at no point did they tell any Member of this House or the other House or the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that and has established a reviewed to ensure that it cannot happen again.

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

Did the Minister hear the “Today” programme this morning, where the BBC had somehow obtained information that millionaires in this country were threatening to leave if they were asked to pay fair taxation? Will he ignore them completely and instead take account of the millionaires who gathered at Davos and said they were willing to pay more so that the poor people in this country could become better off? Those are the millionaires we should pay attention to, not the ones who are threatening to leave the country.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his insight. He knows that we must rebuild our public finances to ensure economic stability, including by addressing the £22 billion black hole. He knows too that that will involve difficult decisions on spending, welfare and tax.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th September 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I hope I can address the concerns of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Vere, and provide them with reassurances about the protections in place for depositors as a result of the mechanism under this Bill. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that in the event that the mechanism under the Bill is used, it would not reduce a covered depositor’s entitlement to a payout in the event of a subsequent bank insolvency. In this situation, eligible depositors would continue to be paid out up to the coverage limit set by the Prudential Regulation Authority, which is currently £85,000. That protection is enshrined in the rules set by the Prudential Regulation Authority. If the mechanism under the Bill is used and a bank subsequently enters insolvency, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme will continue to have access to the same resources as it does now. This means that it would first seek to use any existing funds or its commercial borrowing facility to meet its costs. If that is not sufficient, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is able to turn to the Treasury and request a loan under the National Loans Fund. Any borrowing under the National Loans Fund would then be repaid by future levies. That is an important backstop that means that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme can continue to access the funding it needs.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked a specific question about affordability being taken into account when deciding to recapitalise using the payout in insolvency. The answer to that is yes. The bank would consult the PRA when deciding to use its powers to consider affordability in levies. I hope this provides the reassurance that the noble Baroness is seeking that covered depositors will not face a reduction in what they are entitled to in insolvency if the new mechanism is used. On that basis, I hope she will be able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Can I just clarify what happens when the FSCS has gone to the Treasury, because there does not appear to be a limit on the amount of money that it could draw down to meet its obligations to protected depositors? As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out on our first Committee day, there might be several financial institutions—my noble friend also raised this—in play at one time. It cannot be the case that an infinite amount of money can be funnelled through the FSCS and ultimately funded by loans from the National Loan Fund with the expectation that that will always then be met by subsequent years’ levies on the institution. Is there is there no break in the system which says, “No, this is too much for the FSCS to deal with”, especially as it is now potentially being loaded with a different kind of expense to process through its mechanisms?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness said, we touched on this briefly in the first day of Committee. If it is okay with her, I will write to set out the precise way in which the mechanism would work in that instance.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his reply, which was broadly as I expected. We can draw from it that, in a situation in which the scheme will be used for recapitalisation, it will not set any precedents, because we do not know how much money will be in the pot if there have been other events. It will be considered case by case.

On the one hand, that has to be so, otherwise you might fall into the sort of trap perceived by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes: that it is a perpetual pot, which the banks will have to fill, no matter what. That is not satisfactory but, at the same time, it is nice to have as much clarity as possible about the expected outcomes. We come back to the same point about what goes into the code of practice or other versions of it, whatever they may be.

My final point—I do not need to labour points that we have been around before—is that, in his answer about eligible depositors, the Minister said that this is enshrined in PRA rules. I just wish that it was enshrined in primary legislation, as it used to be. I had not absorbed how that was in the rules and was therefore changeable by the PRA. I thought that it would be fixed in primary legislation, but that is something else to think about. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, there is not an awful lot more to say. This is a very elegant amendment from my noble friend Lady Noakes, and it was very elegantly explained. I am the sole member of this Committee today who is not a member of the Financial Services Regulation Committee—no, neither is the Minister—and I am sorry about that. All noble Lords involved in getting the committee set up have an enormous amount of experience in the field of financial services regulation and, looking at the inquiries that it is already doing, I think it will be a very valuable part of our regulatory infrastructure. I look on this amendment with warmth and favourability and I should imagine that the Minister will do so, too.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, focuses on the important theme of how the Bank of England is accountable to Parliament. As I have said in response to other amendments, the Government agree that it is right that the Bank of England is held to account for the actions it takes in resolution. That includes being accountable, as appropriate, to Parliament, so I do look warmly, in the words of my noble friend Lord Eatwell, at the intent of this amendment. I also stress that it is right that the Bank of England can act quickly and decisively when exercising its powers. That is particularly important in a crisis situation.

That said, the Government expect that the Bank of England would engage with Parliament after taking resolution action, including when the mechanism under the Bill is used. Specifically, under the existing provisions of the Banking Act, when the Bank of England exercises its resolution powers it must provide a copy of the relevant legal instrument to the Treasury. The Treasury must then lay that instrument in Parliament and the Bank of England must also publish it. This will continue to apply under the new mechanism and ensure that Parliament is notified when resolution action is undertaken. I shall give one specific example. In the case of SVB, the Bank sent to the Treasury the copy of the legal instrument the same morning as it exercised its power. The Treasury then laid the relevant document in Parliament on the very same day.

I also reiterate points I have made elsewhere about the Government’s commitment to require the Bank of England to produce reports in the event that the mechanism is used. The Government strongly expect such reports to be made public and laid in Parliament unless there are clear public interest grounds for not doing so, such as issues of commercial confidentiality. I hope this provides some comfort to the noble Baroness and, on that basis, I respectfully ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Just to clarify something with the Minister, I understand that the resolution instruments are notified to the Treasury and laid before Parliament but they, of course, do not refer to the use of the mechanism in the Bill. That is what I was focusing on, rather than the resolution action itself. They may be separated, so it is not quite satisfactory to say that the law already provides for the resolution instruments to be relaid, unless that bit of the legislation, from the 2009 Act, were amended to cover the use of the Bank’s payment capitalisation power. I was trying to fill in a gap that I thought existed.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not know whether this goes far enough for the noble Baroness but we absolutely intend, and would be clear, that we expect the same exact procedure to apply for this new mechanism.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am about to write to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on the matter that he raises in his Amendment 17, following a commitment that I gave on the first day in Committee. I will also happily reflect any points raised in this debate in that letter, if helpful. In the meantime, I will set out some of the content of that letter, while providing some additional clarity on the points he raises. Again, I hear the request for worked examples that we discussed on day one.

The Bill extends the role of the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to include providing funds at the Bank of England’s request, which the Bank of England could then use to recapitalise the firm in question. As I have set out previously, the intention would be to achieve that recapitalisation by injecting equity into the failed firm, helping to restore it to viability. In the event that the Bank of England places the failed firm into a bridge bank, the Bank of England would become the sole shareholder for that bridge bank.

It is therefore possible that the Bank of England would receive recoveries in a subsequent winding-up of the bridge bank if all other claims were met, reflecting its position in the creditor hierarchy as a shareholder. The Bill provides for any such recoveries to be returned to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The Government consider this to be an appropriate method for dealing with funds used in a resolution and in keeping with the existing principles of the creditor hierarchy. I note four further important points.

First, by ensuring an injection of equity, it achieves the core purpose of the new mechanism, which is to restore the firm to solvency. By contrast, if such a payment were classified as debt—even if that had a more favourable ranking in the creditor hierarchy— there is a risk that it would not restore the firm to the necessary level of balance-sheet health.

Secondly, I note that the primary intention in deploying resolution tools using the new mechanism would be to sell the firm. It is therefore the Government’s expectation that a sale should be the outcome in the majority of cases, rather than placing the firm into insolvency and winding it up from a bridge bank.

Thirdly, I point out that, if the firm entered insolvency from a bridge bank and there were still eligible depositors, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme would pay compensation to those depositors and take on their position in the creditor hierarchy, as it usually does. That of course is the right approach, ensuring depositors maintain their super-preferred status in an insolvency. It is important to note that changes to the creditor hierarchy must be considered carefully to ensure there is clarity for investors and market participants as to how they would be treated in a failure scenario. Treating the funds provided by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme as a debt only at the point of winding up the firm, and not prior to that, might create uncertainty as to its interaction with insolvency law more broadly.

Finally, I note that the super-preferred status in the creditor hierarchy that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme currently enjoys in insolvency reflects a different set of objectives. In those circumstances, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is standing in the shoes of depositors and that preferred status is seeking to protect depositors’ interests. That is different to the intent of the mechanism delivered by the Bill, which is to provide a source of resolution funding to recapitalise a failing firm.

I appreciate the Committee’s interest in what is a technical but important matter. I hope that I have been able to clarify the intent of the Bill and that the noble Lord is able to withdraw his amendment as a result.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I understand what the Minister says about the equity of the original shareholders being effectively written down to zero, but what happens with, for example, lenders who are transferred into the bridge bank? It cannot be right that they probably lose everything in the event of an insolvency situation, but if the FSCS, via the Bank of England, has injected a load of money into the failing bank and it then goes into insolvency, there is more money there and therefore those lenders will receive a share of their cash, if there is enough, which they would have lost in an insolvency situation. However, the FSCS gets nothing back because there is nothing to recoup as it has gone to the lenders. In effect, in certain circumstances the lenders to the failing bank may be bailed out by the FSCS through the Bank of England. That does not seem right to me. Those lenders took a risk in the first instance that was not predicated on being bailed out. I think there is something here that needs to be followed up. Have I got that right?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

In the letter I will write, we will set out exactly what would happen in the example that the noble Lord gives.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I thank the Minister for that explanation and look forward to receiving the letter with the details and, I hope, a detailed worked example. However, an issue remains. The principle must be that a recapitalisation of the bank by the FSCS will not, in effect, bail out the existing shareholders—which it seems it does not do—or existing creditors, with the exception of the depositors, who are protected separately. There is something that needs looking at quite carefully here. I think we will come back to this on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

I also support the sentiment in the amendment from my noble friend Lady Noakes. I think all noble Lords here, including the Minister, would agree that this has the right intention but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, mentioned, there will be edge cases which we cannot foresee at this time. The question is: should such a statement of intent be in the special resolution objectives and, if not, where should it go? I do not know—perhaps in a code of practice, or perhaps not. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seeks to introduce a new objective into the special resolution regime. The new objective would state that the costs in using the new mechanism should not exceed those that would be incurred in the counterfactual of placing the firm into insolvency. This amendment therefore touches on an important point raised both in consultation and during Second Reading, which is whether there should be a formal test or objective that seeks to prevent the use of the new mechanism, or make its use significantly more challenging, where the cost is higher than insolvency.

I also note that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, raised similar points on the first day of Committee, which he alluded to today, making the case that the Bank of England should be required to present an assessment of costs in reports to the Treasury and to Parliament.

The Government carefully considered the case for inclusion of various forms of such a safeguard, sometimes referred to as a least-cost test, in response to feedback received during the consultation. In considering this matter, it is important to strike the right balance between ensuring that the Bank of England can respond quickly and flexibly to a firm failure and ensuring that costs to industry are properly considered. Having considered this, the Government concluded that the existing public interest test and special resolution regime objectives remained the appropriate framework for deciding whether the mechanism in this Bill could be used.

Adding a specific objective for the Bank of England to ensure that the costs to industry from using the new mechanism do not exceed insolvency could prevent it taking the most appropriate action to advance its broader resolution objectives. Those objectives include protecting financial stability, certain depositors and public funds. It is right that these aims are prioritised at a time of significant risk, which is part of the reason why the Government have not proposed changes to the broader resolution framework.

There is also the potential for such a change to impose important practical challenges. Resolution would likely take place in an uncertain and fast-paced context. Estimating the costs of different approaches during this period will be highly challenging and could change over time. There is therefore a risk that such an objective could create legal uncertainty around any resolution action, which in turn may undermine the usability and effectiveness of the new mechanism in situations where it is justified. This could have significant and undesirable consequences, including crystallising a set of indirect costs for the financial services sector and the wider economy. Further, it should be borne in mind that the alternative if the new mechanism is not available may be to use public funds.

However, I appreciate the intent behind the noble Baroness’s amendment and hope that I can provide some reassurance by reiterating previous points on the subject of the scrutiny and transparency of the Bank of England’s actions. As I have noted, the Bank of England is required under the Banking Act 2009 to report to the Treasury when exercising some of its stabilisation powers and, as was set out in response to the consultation, it is the Government’s clear intention to use these existing reporting mechanisms to ensure that the Bank of England is subject to appropriate scrutiny when using the mechanism provided by the Bill. However, I take the point that the noble Baroness made in response to my earlier point.

The Government have committed to updating the code of practice to provide further details on how these reporting requirements will apply when the mechanism is used. I reaffirm that the Government intend to include confirmation in the code that, after the new mechanism has been used, the Bank of England would be required to disclose the estimated costs to industry of the options considered, including the comparison with insolvency. The Government consider that using the code of practice in this way, rather than putting these requirements in the Bill, is the best approach to hold the Bank of England to account for its actions.

The Bank of England is legally required to have regard to the code and the Government are required to consult the Banking Liaison Panel, made up of regulatory and industry stakeholders, when updating it. Using the code will therefore ensure that a full and thorough consultation is taken on the approach. Given the complex and potentially fast-moving nature of bank failures, this will also ensure that any approach is sufficiently nuanced to account for the range of possible outcomes under insolvency or through the use of other resolution tools.

As I have previously said, the Government will share drafts of the updates to the code of practice as soon as practicable and provide sufficient opportunity for industry stakeholders to be consulted on them. The noble Baroness also made the case that insolvency should be a preferred strategy for small banks and I stress that this is the case. I hope that I have provided some helpful explanation to her of the Government’s position on this matter and respectfully ask that she withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for supporting the principle behind my amendment, even if they did not fully align with the mechanism that I have chosen. We have had a useful debate on the issues involved. The Minister’s response was clearly helpful and I want to consider it carefully.

The Minister talked about things being very fast-paced, which I completely accept. Nevertheless, the Bank has to make a decision on the best information that it has. I am trying to build only on what it should be doing anyway, even though that is difficult to do when things are moving very fast.

Let me reflect on what the Minister said. It may come back to the issues which I am going to discuss in the next amendment, which are about the code of practice and needing to see what is likely to be said in that. I will shut up at this point and save my powder until the next group. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes about the code of practice because it is important that we have this debate. I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, says, but it slightly struck fear into my heart because it is about those circumstances where there is not sufficient guidance or a code of practice. Essentially, this is not necessarily just for the Bank of England; it is for all those stakeholders who will be involved in the other side of a resolution. A lot of people will read the code of practice and internalise it. When it is needed, it will therefore already be in their hearts because they will have read it, so I am not as concerned as the noble Lord is about putting in too much detail. The simple fact is that we have not seen anything, so we do not really know what we are dealing with.

It struck me that in the slight rush to bring forward some legislation to keep Parliament occupied, perhaps, the Government are not providing all the information that the House needs to consider this Bill fully. It is complex, and as noble Lords go through it, it is clear that we are all picking up new nuances that we consider might be of concern in the future. The code of practice makes up an important component of the regime and the Committee is slightly flying blind, having not seen a draft of the changes—not only a draft of what would happen as a result of the Bill, but also potentially to fill gaps that we know are not going to be part of the Bill. We know that the code is potentially the only protection between anybody who uses banks—essentially, the taxpayer—and the Bank being able to perform maximum adaptation to a situation. There has to be something in the middle that stops that happening.

I am warming to my noble friend Lady Noakes’s suggestion that the Bill should not come into force until the code of practice is finalised, but I sense that that might be a little churlish. The amendment itself is a little anodyne. I think all noble Lords agree that the Government will, of course, make changes to the code of practice, but I would appreciate hearing more information from the Minister about what changes are anticipated—specifically, what will be left out—and the timing for any code of practice because while it remains outstanding, even in draft form, there is a significant lack of clarity.

At Second Reading, the Minister stated that the update will happen in due course. How many times have I used that phrase? I know exactly what it means. It means “when we are sort of ready”. We need to be a bit more ambitious than that. Can the Minister give any further guidance on timing? If he cannot, would it be helpful if I tabled an amendment on Report that required the code of practice to be updated within, say, three months and subject to approval by both Houses? I am happy to do that if it is helpful.

As my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pointed out, the Minister has referred to these things being addressed in the code of practice. Many of the elements in the reporting are also supposed to be in that code. My concern is that six weeks have now passed since the Minister said “in due course” and the House rises at the end of the week for Conference Recess. I presume that the Treasury is still working, so that would be a further window during which progress on a draft code of practice could be made. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister can commit to having a draft document available for review before Report stage is scheduled. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I should state at the outset that the Government have no objections to the principle under discussion. Indeed, the Government have already stated publicly in our response to the consultation on these proposals that we intend to update the code of practice to reflect the measures in the Bill. I have already committed to share a draft of the proposed updates at the earliest opportunity, and I am happy to reaffirm that commitment today. I am aware that this is not the answer that the Committee is looking for, but I am afraid that I cannot commit to providing that before Report. However, I expect it to be available before the Bill comes into force.

As set out in the Government’s consultation response, the updates to the code will do three things: first, they will ensure that the code appropriately reflects the existence of the new mechanism; secondly, they will set out that the Bank is expected to set out estimates of the costs of the options considered and, as noted elsewhere, this is expected to include the case of insolvency; and thirdly, they will set out the expectation that any use of the mechanism is subject to the ex post scrutiny arrangements that I have described elsewhere.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, perfectly fairly asked for a series of clarifications of what the code will include. She asked about two points specifically. The first was whether the code will confirm the mechanisms intended for small banks and the expenses covered? Yes, it is the intention that it will. She also asked whether the code will cover multiple uses of the mechanism. Yes, the code will cover that. I will answer other specific questions in writing.

In preparing these updates, the Government are mindful to ensure that they are done efficiently and carefully to ensure that they achieve the intended effect within the wider resolution framework, for instance, ensuring that the right set of costs is considered on the appropriate basis.

The Government will ensure sufficient opportunity for industry stakeholders to be consulted on these proposed updates to the code of practice. In particular, the final wording of any proposed updates would be subject to review by a cross-section of representatives from the authorities and the industry on the statutory Banking Liaison Panel, which advises the Treasury on the resolution regime. As noted, the Government will aim to progress these updates and make the proposed changes available for consultation with industry as soon as practicable.

Finally, I note that the Banking Act 2009 already imposes an implicit requirement on HM Treasury to update the code of practice, even without this amendment. Addressing the operation of the new mechanism would therefore already fall within the scope of this requirement.

I know that this explanation may not be sufficient, but I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The Minister just referred to an “implicit requirement” in the Act. Does he believe that Section 5 can be interpreted only as requiring the code of practice to include matters relating to the bank recapitalisation power? That would be extraordinary because nobody knew about the bank recapitalisation power when the 2009 Act was drafted, so under the principles of ordinary interpretation, it would not be included.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will write to the noble Baroness on that.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for taking part in this short debate. There were three parts. First, Section 5 of the 2009 Act needs to mention the bank recapitalisation power, which is what the amendment does. The Minister is going to write on that.

We moved on to issues with the content and timing of the code. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that we all understand that the Bank needs powers to act as quickly as possible. Nobody is trying seriously to harm that. Taking what the noble Lord said to its logical conclusion, the statute would say just that the Bank of England can do whatever necessary when it comes to situations of bank failure—full stop. We would not have the many pages of the 2009 Act and all the complicated, mind-blowing arrangements that exist, holding companies and everything like that. We would not need that because we could just say that it could do everything. It is overstating the case to say that trying to write codes of practice would hold the Bank up in doing its duty when things go wrong.

What the Minister said on content is a helpful move forward from where we were. We may want to explore that a bit further on Report. However, timing is a concern, as we will not have further clarity by the time we reach Report. The only useful thing he has said is that they expect to reissue the code of practice prior to this Bill coming into force. I suggest that it would be pretty negligent not to update it before bringing the Bill into force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I simply make the same point. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, was absolutely right to summarise the principle which I think all noble Lords on the Committee feel is the purpose of the Bill. There cannot be any circumstances by which there is MREL or whatever it might be left, yet money is going in from FSCS to ensure the resolution of the bank. I cannot see any circumstance in which that would happen—perhaps Treasury officials would be able to think of one—but I think all noble Lords are agreed on the need for some clarity on what would happen.

I appreciated the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I got about 60% of them, so I was really proud of myself; the other 40% went way over my head. I am going to try to understand her points. We are in quite a difficult situation, but the way that she has been so forensic about it has allowed the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, to state what the principle is. It is about combining those two things—the forensic attitude to “This is what the Bill could say if read in a certain way” versus “Just tell us whether the Bill abides by the very simple principle that basically FSCS money should be a last resort, not there for anybody else, but just to prop up a bank to make sure it gets through to the other side of resolution, for the public interest and no more”.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, I reassure her that the Bill does not seek to introduce measures to bail out shareholders. I note that she raised concerns about this point on the first day in Committee, about which I am about to write to her. I hope my response will provide the clarification she is seeking pending that letter and the worked examples that we have discussed.

The amendment relates to a subsection of the Bill that would amend Section 12AA of the Banking Act 2009. This sets out the definition of the shortfall amount, which is a figure calculated by the Bank of England when using the bail-in resolution tool. The shortfall amount determines how much of a firm’s resources need to be bailed in to restore its capital ratio to the extent necessary to sustain sufficient market confidence and enable it to continue to meet the conditions for authorisation for at least one year and to continue to carry out its authorised activities. The methodology for determining the shortfall amount is not changed by the Bill, and it remains the case that when using the bail-in tool a firm’s own resources and eligible liabilities—its shareholders and creditors—would bear losses.

The relevant provision is not intended as a means of reducing the amount of MREL that should be used when bailing in a firm. Instead, it is intended to ensure that, in the event the mechanism is used alongside the bail-in tool, funds from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme are taken into account and used rather than the Bank of England having to bail in other creditors further up the creditor hierarchy. As an example, without this provision, if a firm had insufficient MREL to meet its shortfall amount without being able to take into account Financial Services Compensation Scheme funds, it may need to bail in creditors, such as uncovered depositors. Retaining this provision therefore ensures that the Bank of England may exercise some discretion in not bailing in other liabilities beyond a firm’s MREL, such as uncovered deposits, where to do so might risk further destabilising the business of the firm, other participants in the banking sector or other sectors, or reducing wider confidence in the financial system. Therefore, the Government consider it important to maintain flexibility to respond to the relevant circumstances.

In this context, I also note that funds provided by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme under the new mechanism can be used to cover the costs of recapitalising the failed firm, the operating costs of a bridge bank, and Bank of England and HM Treasury costs in relation to the resolution.

It is important to note that Sections 6A, 6B and 12AA of the Banking Act 2009 require the Bank of England to ensure that shareholders and creditors bear losses when a banking institution fails. This is an important principle that will continue to apply where the new mechanism is used.

I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that the regime provides an extensive and proportionate set of powers to the Bank of England to impose consequences on the shareholders of a failed firm in resolution. The bail-in tool specifically enables the Bank of England to impose losses on shareholders and to write down certain unsecured creditors. This is an important principle that ensures the firm’s owners and investors must bear losses in the case of failure.

This is of course a highly technical area, and I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns. To that end, I am happy to explore whether there is further material that the Government can make available, such as worked examples, to help illustrate how this approach may work in practice. I hope these points can reassure the noble Baroness and I respectfully ask her to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

The noble Lord has just confirmed the point that we talked about in Amendment 17, that there are situations where the use of the recapitalisation payment can, in effect, bail out some types of creditors. Indeed, he referred to unprotected deposits as being one area that might make sense. This is quite complex and I suspect that when we have seen the worked examples and so on, there is going to be more to discuss. Would he be prepared to meet with officials and Members of the Committee to go through these things prior to Report, so that we can make sure that we all really understand in what circumstances that that could happen and in what circumstances it cannot?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, absolutely; I will very happily meet. I will write a letter setting this out in greater detail, provide the worked examples, and then perhaps we can meet on that basis.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his replies but I am still not satisfied, in part because of what is in the Explanatory Notes. They should be amended because they cannot stand alongside everything else that is said. I know that they have no legislative power but if we are looking for ways to interpret, they are there. The problem comes from, as I said, “shortfall”, which is defined in a way that has ambiguities. I know full well that “shortfall” was an unusual word; it did not need to be in the BRRD and was put in by the counsel—I think I know who did so because I was told to guard it with my life—for various operations that may still be needed. Now is the time to make it clear. The linkage back to it is not good.

Alongside worked examples, it would probably be quite useful to have a list of the instruments that we think are covered and those that are outside. MREL, which is loss absorption amount plus recapitalisation amount, covers common equity tier 1, other equity instruments, subordinated senior non-preferred instruments and ordinary unsecured senior instruments. It does not include repayable deposits and non-returnable deposits.

How have we ended up talking about bailing in unsecured depositors when we are talking about MREL, because they should not be there in the first place, as far as I understood things? If we cannot understand that, that is not right to put before the public. Can we have a list of the instruments that we think can be bailed in, where they are bailed in, and then the point at which in that stack the FSCS compensation can come in? Once we have worked out where that is and can see it clearly, I should be much better pleased if we could define that ab initio in the Bill rather than reference back to language that is flawed and risks either leading us up the garden path or not being able to understand it, even though I declare that I have confidence that the Bank of England will probably get it right.

It is splitting hairs, but I cannot make that wording work; I am sorry. Therefore, in hoping that I will get some more explanations, for the present, I shall withdraw the amendment, but it may well be that either this or my Amendment 22 in some form might need to reappear on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.