1-20 of 203 results for member:"Lord Pitt-Watson"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.256 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.002 seconds
- Search query
- member:"Lord Pitt-Watson"
- We searched for
- member_ses:573990
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the merits of introducing public country by country reporting to tackle profit shifting by large multinational corporations.
To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the merits of introducing public country by country reporting to tackle profit shifting by large multinational corporations.
The UK has led the way on international tax reforms to ensure that large multinational enterprises pay their fair share of tax on profits arising from their UK activities. This includes fully implementing the actions agreed through the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, and being at the forefront of development and implementation of the Global Minimum Corporate Tax. These reforms have strengthened the international tax framework and reduced opportunities for multinational groups to shift profits artificially. The UK already requires multinational groups to provide country-by-country reports to HMRC, publishes aggregated country-level data, has public reporting requirements in certain sectors and robust wider reporting requirements. The Government believes that any action on public country-by-country reporting should be coordinated internationally to ensure a consistent and comprehensive approach and to minimise the risk of competitive distortions.
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to make pension tax relief conditional upon undertakings by the funds to invest at least 15 per cent of their equity portfolios in British public and private companies.
To ask His Majesty's Government what plans they have, if any, to make pension tax relief conditional upon undertakings by the funds to invest at least 15 per cent of their equity portfolios in British public and private companies.
The Government's approach is underpinned by the Pension Schemes Act 2026, which introduced a package of reforms, including measures to support scheme consolidation, improve value for money and create the conditions for greater long-term investment in productive assets.
Under the Mansion House Accord, 17 of the UK's largest workplace pension providers have voluntarily committed to invest at least 10 per cent of their default funds in private markets by 2030, with at least half of that invested in the UK.
This voluntary industry-led commitment aims to unlock significant additional investment in productive assets across the UK economy, including in private companies, and the Government is encouraged by the progress made to date.
To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to devolving the power of setting business rates to Northern Ireland as part of the government's devolution agenda.
To ask His Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to devolving the power of setting business rates to Northern Ireland as part of the government's devolution agenda.
Non-domestic rates are already devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly by the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of (a) gains to HM Treasury from the years of operation of quantitative easing, and (b) the losses to HM Treasury since 2022 from quantitative tightening as a result of the implementation of the agreement for HM Treasury to cover...
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of (a) gains to HM Treasury from the years of operation of quantitative easing, and (b) the losses to HM Treasury since 2022 from quantitative tightening as a result of the implementation of the agreement for HM Treasury to cover...
The Bank of England has operational independence from the government to carry out its statutory responsibilities for monetary policy and financial stability. Monetary policy, including the pace of quantitative easing and quantitative tightening, is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England. The Government does not comment on monetary policy decisions.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts debt interest costs as part of the fiscal forecasts in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
Since October 2022, HM Treasury has transferred £110.72bn to the Bank of England to cover losses arising from the indemnity of the Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle used to implement quantitative easing. This covers losses incurred from net interest costs and the sale and redemption of bonds as the portfolio is unwound. Since 2013, the Bank of England has transferred £123.85bn to HM Treasury, giving HM Treasury a net position of £13.13bn to date.
Data on these cash transfers between HM Treasury and the Bank of England are made publicly available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its monthly Public Sector Finances publication.
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the effect of bond sales by the Bank of England, undertaken because of quantitative tightening, on long-term borrowing rates; and what assessment they have made of the additional 30 basis points on the yields of long-dated bonds, including its...
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the effect of bond sales by the Bank of England, undertaken because of quantitative tightening, on long-term borrowing rates; and what assessment they have made of the additional 30 basis points on the yields of long-dated bonds, including its...
The Bank of England has operational independence from the government to carry out its statutory responsibilities for monetary policy and financial stability. Monetary policy, including the pace of quantitative easing and quantitative tightening, is the responsibility of the independent Monetary Policy Committee at the Bank of England. The Government does not comment on monetary policy decisions.
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecasts debt interest costs as part of the fiscal forecasts in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
Since October 2022, HM Treasury has transferred £110.72bn to the Bank of England to cover losses arising from the indemnity of the Asset Purchase Facility, the vehicle used to implement quantitative easing. This covers losses incurred from net interest costs and the sale and redemption of bonds as the portfolio is unwound. Since 2013, the Bank of England has transferred £123.85bn to HM Treasury, giving HM Treasury a net position of £13.13bn to date.
Data on these cash transfers between HM Treasury and the Bank of England are made publicly available by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in its monthly Public Sector Finances publication.
The Government’s commitment to the defence of this country is absolute. We have the third-highest absolute expenditure on defence among our allies. We will honour our NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035. In direct answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, we will set the target date in the spending review for 3%. We are also committed to bear down on the welfare bill, but not by
arbitrarily punishing those who depend on it. Finally, I note, and I hope the House understands this, that these two issues are not inextricably linked and that it is a danger if politicians suggest that we need to make false choices.
The Government’s commitment to the defence of this country is absolute. We have the third-highest absolute expenditure on defence among our allies. We will honour our NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035. In direct answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, we will set the target date in the spending review for 3%. We are also committed to bear down on the welfare bill, but not by
arbitrarily punishing those who depend on it. Finally, I note, and I hope the House understands this, that these two issues are not inextricably linked and that it is a danger if politicians suggest that we need to make false choices.
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to reduce the welfare budget to fund defence.
My Lords, that is exactly the sort of false choice that we need to guard against. We want to be clear that we spend the welfare budget well. That is why we have the Timms review on PIPs and why we have the Milburn review on NEETs and getting a system for getting people back to work.
Since it was quite a long question, I would like to tell noble Lords about fraud. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will be saving £4.3 billion on fraud in the welfare system that they inherited. I think they learned from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, a Conservative Peer and one of my predecessors, who stood at this Dispatch Box and said that it was arrogance, indolence and ignorance that was stopping us bearing down on it and that he hoped his resignation would make someone do something about it. We are and we will.
My Lords, that is exactly the sort of false choice that we need to guard against. We want to be clear that we spend the welfare budget well. That is why we have the Timms review on PIPs and why we have the Milburn review on NEETs and getting a system for getting people back to work.
Since it was quite a long question, I would like to tell noble Lords about fraud. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will be saving £4.3 billion on fraud in the welfare system that they inherited. I think they learned from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, a Conservative Peer and one of my predecessors, who stood at this Dispatch Box and said that it was arrogance, indolence and ignorance that was stopping us bearing down on it and that he hoped his resignation would make someone do something about it. We are and we will.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but the fact is that the welfare bill is heading towards £350 billion. The total income tax take last year was £330 billion, with public sector debt reaching 94% by mid-2026. In the last Government, Sir Keir Starmer could not persuade his Back-Benchers to reduce the welfare bill by £5 billion per annum. So, I ask the Minister: can we assume that this Prime Minister will also continue to put social security before national security in order for his Members of Parliament to hang on to their parliamentary seats?
I completely agree with those statements. Let us recognise that in 2025 this Government committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, after years, as my noble friend pointed out, of decline. I hope I will have an opportunity to come back and talk about the welfare budget and the Conservative proposals for it later on in Questions; I should allow time for that.
I completely agree with those statements. Let us recognise that in 2025 this Government committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War, after years, as my noble friend pointed out, of decline. I hope I will have an opportunity to come back and talk about the welfare budget and the Conservative proposals for it later on in Questions; I should allow time for that.
My Lords, first, I apologise to the House for sounding like a broken record, but does my noble friend agree with me that the Benches opposite should have a bit of humility? When they were in government, from 2010 to 2016, they cut the defence budget by 16%, made members of our Armed Forces compulsorily redundant, leading to the smallest standing Army since Napoleonic times, and, in collusion with their Liberal Democrat coalition partners, delayed the implementation of the replacement of the nuclear deterrent, adding billions to the cost. Does my noble friend also agree that the choice they are putting forward between defence and welfare is a false one and that they need to explain how they would get money out of the welfare budget, not in the future but today, to reinforce the defence budget?
As I said, the 3% timing will be declared at the spending review. I do not want to do all the criticising of other parties, actually; I am trying to maintain a collegiate House. But I do remember, a couple of weeks ago, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry talked about old people, who she said were of “immeasurable worth”. Everyone is of immeasurable worth. Of course we need to talk about big numbers for defence and welfare, but real people depend on welfare and those real people are of immeasurable worth. That should inform our debate.
As I said, the 3% timing will be declared at the spending review. I do not want to do all the criticising of other parties, actually; I am trying to maintain a collegiate House. But I do remember, a couple of weeks ago, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry talked about old people, who she said were of “immeasurable worth”. Everyone is of immeasurable worth. Of course we need to talk about big numbers for defence and welfare, but real people depend on welfare and those real people are of immeasurable worth. That should inform our debate.
Is it not unfortunate that the Conservatives, who are in no way blameless for the parlous state of the public finances, are arguing
the case for defence on the basis of saying that the people who should bear the burden of topping up the defence budget are the poorest, the most disabled and the most disadvantaged? That, of course, is the Conservative Party in a nutshell. Does the Minister recognise that the sooner the Government deliver clearly how they are going to achieve the 3%, so that procurement can start now, the sooner we can have a sensible debate on benefit priorities?
That the Government have an absolute commitment to the defence of this nation; that we already have the third-highest absolute expenditure among our allies; that we will honour our NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035 and set a target for 3% on defence at the spending review; and that in 2025 we committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. That is not bad.
That the Government have an absolute commitment to the defence of this nation; that we already have the third-highest absolute expenditure among our allies; that we will honour our NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035 and set a target for 3% on defence at the spending review; and that in 2025 we committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War. That is not bad.
How should our adversaries interpret the Treasury’s defence stance?
I think the reference to private companies and what defence spending can do for the economy is very important. If I have my figures right, the additional investment we will be making will create 60,000 more jobs in the private sector. So we are aware of this important point and I thank the noble and gallant Lord.
I think the reference to private companies and what defence spending can do for the economy is very important. If I have my figures right, the additional investment we will be making will create 60,000 more jobs in the private sector. So we are aware of this important point and I thank the noble and gallant Lord.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that progress towards the 3% and 3.5% targets for defence spending can best be described as glacial? Will he undertake that the Treasury will look at imaginative ways of funding defence, in particular the innovative contribution that small and medium-sized enterprises can make, along with their access to private funding? It does not all have to come from the Treasury.
I think I have made the Government’s position on that reasonably clear. Let us just look at the proposal we have, for example on housing benefit, from the party opposite to take £4 billion off the budget, which is something like £13.5 billion or £14 billion. Have we thought about how many people that would make homeless? Have we thought about how many of them would then turn up, of course with the right to be housed if they have children? Noble Lords can hear where I am coming from.
I think I have made the Government’s position on that reasonably clear. Let us just look at the proposal we have, for example on housing benefit, from the party opposite to take £4 billion off the budget, which is something like £13.5 billion or £14 billion. Have we thought about how many people that would make homeless? Have we thought about how many of them would then turn up, of course with the right to be housed if they have children? Noble Lords can hear where I am coming from.
My Lords, the best causally identified route of the rise of populist parties and extremist groups in this country is poverty, alongside deindustrialisation, austerity and perceived community decline. Does the Minister agree that the duty of a Government to protect their citizens includes protecting them from internal threats as well as external ones?
Yes. I would answer that by saying that £4.3 billion will be saved as a result of the biggest crackdown in a generation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his passion on that when he stood at this Dispatch Box. We are responding to his call to take action.
Yes. I would answer that by saying that £4.3 billion will be saved as a result of the biggest crackdown in a generation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for his passion on that when he stood at this Dispatch Box. We are responding to his call to take action.
My Lords, could my noble friend and fellow Scotsman give us a few examples of sensible savings that the Government are making to our welfare budget?
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to reduce the welfare budget to fund defence.
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to reduce the welfare budget to fund defence.
The Government’s commitment to the defence of this country is absolute. We have the third-highest absolute expenditure on defence among our allies. We will honour our NATO commitment of 3.5% by 2035. In direct answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, we will set the target date in the spending review for 3%. We are also committed to bear down on the welfare bill, but not by
arbitrarily punishing those who depend on it. Finally, I note, and I hope the House understands this, that these two issues are not inextricably linked and that it is a danger if politicians suggest that we need to make false choices.
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve labour productivity in the public sector.
To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve labour productivity in the public sector.
The government is taking a range of steps to improve labour productivity in the public sector - that is, to increase public services output per hour worked. I will touch on a few of them.
Central to this is investment in artificial intelligence and technology to reduce administrative burden and free up staff time for frontline delivery.
More broadly, the government is investing in productivity-enhancing reform across public services, including up to £10 billion for NHS technology and digital transformation, £2.1 billion to modernise HM Revenue and Customs' information technology and data infrastructure, and £1.9 billion for cross-cutting digital transformation across government.
The government is also committed to improving Civil Service productivity. This includes reducing bureaucracy by adopting digital technology and AI tools, streamlining approval processes, and establishing a higher-skilled civil service with stronger accountability for performance.
Through automation of routine administrative tasks, we are freeing up civil servants to focus on high-value casework and delivering better services to the public. For example, the incubator for AI (i.AI) tool "Consult", has publicly supported 38 consultations across 10 departments, saving tens of thousands of administrative hours and millions of pounds.
The Cabinet Secretary is also leading a wide-ranging review of the permanent Civil Service to set out a vision for its future as an efficient, world class institution serving the elected government of the day. The review will report before summer 2027. Its final report will include proposals to strengthen accountability and capability across the Civil Service, with a focus on delivery, innovation and productivity, and public trust.
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the cost of the UK's support to the government of Ukraine in the current financial year.
To ask His Majesty's Government what estimate they have made of the cost of the UK's support to the government of Ukraine in the current financial year.
Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine poses a direct threat to UK and European prosperity and security. We are proud to be a leading partner in providing vital support to Ukraine since the onset of the war in 2022, and we will continue to do so.
This calendar year, the UK has provided up to £5.6bn to date in support to Ukraine. We track support across a calendar year rather than the financial year to align with Ukrainian budget timescales. Ukrainians are defending their country against Russian aggression at immense personal cost, and their fight is in our national security interests. Supporting Ukraine helps to deter further Russian aggression across Europe, and protect the security and prosperity of the United Kingdom.
In total, the UK has committed up to £25bn for Ukraine since Russia’s illegal invasion: this includes £16bn in military support, £3.5bn cover limit in UK export finance and up to £5.6bn in non-military support including bilateral assistance, humanitarian and fiscal support.
This Government has pledged to sustain £3 billion a year in military aid to Ukraine until 2030 to 2031 and for as long as it takes until a just peace is achieved.
My Lords, this Question about the Government’s interest bill is a really good one: £1 in every £10 of government money is now spent paying interest. There are three elements causing this. One is the overall level of borrowing, and consistent, disciplined fiscal rules that are kept to are, we believe, the right answer. There is also the growth in global interest rates, for example following quantitative easing. We are also living in an extremely uncertain world, particularly in the Persian Gulf. The third element is the premium that the UK now pays over the G7 average—a premium that has been apparent since September 2022. Again, the best remedy for that is sustained fiscal discipline, including respecting the independence of the Bank of England in particular and, of course, the Office for Budget Responsibility.
My Lords, this Question about the Government’s interest bill is a really good one: £1 in every £10 of government money is now spent paying interest. There are three elements causing this. One is the overall level of borrowing, and consistent, disciplined fiscal rules that are kept to are, we believe, the right answer. There is also the growth in global interest rates, for example following quantitative easing. We are also living in an extremely uncertain world, particularly in the Persian Gulf. The third element is the premium that the UK now pays over the G7 average—a premium that has been apparent since September 2022. Again, the best remedy for that is sustained fiscal discipline, including respecting the independence of the Bank of England in particular and, of course, the Office for Budget Responsibility.
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the £110 billion annual interest bill for servicing Government debt.
Overall fiscal discipline is the central question. Discipline is really important. The noble Baroness mentioned the moron premium. I do not know whether all noble Lords understand what that term refers to: it was a slight by an economist describing the behaviour of the team responsible for
the September 2022 mini-Budget. To give a sense of the cost, it is £15 billion a year. I think we have learned lessons from that. When I spoke in the debate last week, speakers from across the House agreed that fiscal discipline, independent oversight and not moving the goalposts were critical. The balance of spending on tax might be something on which we disagree, but on fiscal discipline we agree entirely.
Overall fiscal discipline is the central question. Discipline is really important. The noble Baroness mentioned the moron premium. I do not know whether all noble Lords understand what that term refers to: it was a slight by an economist describing the behaviour of the team responsible for
the September 2022 mini-Budget. To give a sense of the cost, it is £15 billion a year. I think we have learned lessons from that. When I spoke in the debate last week, speakers from across the House agreed that fiscal discipline, independent oversight and not moving the goalposts were critical. The balance of spending on tax might be something on which we disagree, but on fiscal discipline we agree entirely.
My Lords, as most of us agreed in my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley’s debate last week, we need to be honest about the trade-offs that we face, given the sheer scale of our national debt and the moron premium on our gilts, which the Minister mentioned. I believe that the only way to avoid a financial crisis is to reduce spending. Does the Minister agree?
The Debt Management Office is part of the Bank of England. I would be more than happy to write to it, or the noble Baroness herself might wish to write for the answer to her question.
The Debt Management Office is part of the Bank of England. I would be more than happy to write to it, or the noble Baroness herself might wish to write for the answer to her question.
My Lords, under the 2026-27 Treasury remit to the Debt Management Office, index-linked gilt issuances will account for 9.3% of total new gilt issuances. Why was this decision made when a quarter of UK gilts are already index-linked well above the international norms, when we are in a period of inflation and rising interest rates, and when defined benefit plans—the schemes which had a hedging rather than a speculative use for index-linking—are rapidly disappearing? Does this make any sense?
Let me write to my noble friend to make sure that my reply is accurate. However, I believe that matter is under discussion.
Let me write to my noble friend to make sure that my reply is accurate. However, I believe that matter is under discussion.
My Lords, are the Government going to join the defence, security and resilience bank to enable us to borrow money at lower interest rates for defence spending?