Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 15th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the clarity with which he has introduced these amendments. I am even more grateful to him for the very great care and attention that he and his team of officials gave to the concerns that were raised across the House about not just the perception but the reality of what Clause 16, as previously drafted, would have done to the ability of regulators—and their duties and responsibilities—to take, within their day-to-day functions, proper cognisance of the risks to financial markets and industry, and to our economy, of changes in climate and in the natural environment.

What we have managed to do is find a way forward that keeps within the bounds of what the Government intended in the regulation but does not sacrifice focus, given that, if nothing else, this summer gave us real experience of the effects that can happen through these issues. I am thinking particularly of the insurance industry and the housing market, and the effects that are already being felt there.

It has been quite a struggle to get here and we have gone down some byways but, in the end, we have reached absolutely the right conclusion. I am extremely grateful to the Minister and absolutely support these amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to briefly follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and to applaud the work of her and her allies that has got us to this place, as she said, after a great deal of struggle. One day, we will simply have these provisions arriving in the Bills without the need for struggle—we can but hope.

I have one simple question to put to the Minister, which was inspired by attending “The People’s Emergency Briefing” on climate and nature in Gravesend on Saturday night. It was one of some 3,500 events held all around the country after the initial event in Westminster. We have yet to hear from the Conservative Front Bench, but House rumours suggest that the Opposition are going to oppose this amendment. If that is the case, would the Minister agree that they would benefit from seeing that briefing? I therefore ask the Minister—this is the first time I have asked under the new Prime Minister —whether the Government will organise a live national televised emergency briefing on climate and nature, as all these local events are asking.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, my colleagues and noble friends Lady Sheehan and Lady Northover spoke eloquently on these issues on Report. If this amendment is pressed and the others are moved by the Government, we will support them.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 9th September 2026 Lords Chamber

I therefore feel very encouraged that the Government will set out legislation as well as ways to enforce it, because it is extremely difficult to enforce this. There are many companies that put proudly on their products that they contain “legal soy”. That was something, for instance, that Unilever always used to trumpet. I am not entirely sure how you do this, and I am very much in favour of what the Europeans are now looking at, which is to say that legal and illegal deforestation should count. We cannot afford to cut down any more forests. There are many things we cannot afford to keep doing, but this is one of them, and the El Niño that is brewing up in the Pacific will come bursting across the Amazon rainforest, producing heaven knows what in terms of damage to that incredibly precious environmental resource that affects the weather of the entire world. So this legislation cannot come too soon and I welcome the Government’s progress.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to follow all the speakers thus far in this group and to support all these amendments. I have not attached my name specifically to any of them—some of the most prominent are fully subscribed and I wanted to leave space for the breadth of that subscription, noting in particular Amendment 90, which has also been signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who is not currently in her place.

I want to take a second to reflect on the point where we are at now with the Bill overall. What we have before us is essentially the same Bill that was introduced under a different Prime Minister and a different Chancellor. I remain astonished that the approach to competitiveness and deregulation that was directed by Rachel Reeves is now being continued, although after hearing the new Chancellor’s speech two days ago, I am somewhat less surprised.

I will particularly reflect on all the environmental measures here, and we still have before us essentially the same Bill as under the previous Government. I note that our current Prime Minister supported the fossil fuel treaty in June 2025, when he was Mayor of Manchester, and that, when running for the Labour leadership in 2015, he said:

“Labour under my leadership will never turn our back on … our duty to tackle climate change”.


All these amendments are therefore putting the Bill back on the track that it should be on—a track that the Government are apparently signed up to.

I will focus very briefly on Amendment 90 and the forest risk commodities. As with pretty well everyone who has already spoken, I think we remember the long wrestle to get not the strong thing we were looking for but at least the promise of Schedule 17 into the Environment Act 2021. There is a real problem here in terms of members of the public. They heard and saw that fight and saw the law put down by the Government, and they expect it to be delivered. Yet, five years later, we still do not have that provision.

After listening very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I have a constructive suggestion. The timetable coming from Defra suggested that, within 12 to 18 months, we will finally see the delivery of what was promised in 2021. I am sure the Minister will say that he cannot accept Amendment 90. However, it would be very positive if, perhaps at Third Reading, the Government could table an amendment committing to these regulations in, say, 18 months’ time, which would be a minor adaptation to the amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has that promise and pledge in a letter; let us go a little further and put it in the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we have a lot to cover today, so I will be brief.

We do not believe that imposing additional reporting duties, transition plan requirements and regulatory processes on financial services firms is the right way to address the concerns that have been addressed in these amendments this evening. One of the merits of the Bill is the way it cuts out needless and repetitive operational requirements on financial services firms and regulators and instead introduces a more effective approach based on five-year strategies. As we heard on Monday, stakeholders’ views will be sought in the course of establishing those strategies. Of course, climate change and environmental objectives already remain an important statutory regulatory principle, intended to contribute to the UK’s net-zero target under the Climate Change Act and to the environmental targets established under the Environment Act.

However, requiring banks, other financial institutions and the regulators themselves to fill in forms, tick boxes and produce more and more reports about climate change will not have a meaningful effect on global temperatures; it will simply add costs. We need a regulatory environment which supports growth, enterprise and investment. That means cutting down on the red tape and extra requirements that are putting our international competitiveness at risk. These amendments would add a further layer of process and obligation without a sufficiently clear demonstration that the burdens would advance the environmental objectives being pursued.

This is a time when we should be seeking to streamline regulations and be careful about new requirements, however well-intentioned, because of the need to get the economic growth that we lack. These amendments risk taking us a step backwards, so we cannot support them and will be voting against them if noble Lords press them to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 36, 39 and 42 in this group. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for adding her name to them. They seek to achieve, through slightly different drafting, what the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, sought with her Amendments 35 and 41. In my view, proportionality is the most important of the regulatory principles, and we try to elevate it above the other regulatory principles.

I regret the downgrading of regulatory principles in general under Clause 17, but I am glad that the Government have recognised that they went too far on proportionality and have amendments in this group effectively preserving the status quo for proportionality. We have not achieved an upgrading of proportionality in the regulatory hierarchy, but we have at least protected it from being downgraded.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, said a moment ago, the Financial Services Regulation Committee will now have to bear some of the burden. We will need to make sure that the regulators do not ignore the other important regulatory principles. The noble Baroness mentioned transparency, and I agree with her on that. I also single out the principle that consumers need to take responsibility for their own decisions. The committee will certainly call out the regulator if necessary.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

In the interests of time, I shall focus on my Amendment 38, which appears in this group. It would retain the need to have regard to regulatory principles, which has already been broadly discussed. I will focus on the way in which it specifies the need to have regard to financial crime related to organised environmental crime. However, I must take a second to welcome the comments and commitments from the Government Front Bench to bring some climate components back into the Bill at Third Reading. It is always good to celebrate when campaigning works, and I think we can all hope to reach a time when we do not have to campaign on such environmental basics.

I spoke extensively in Committee about the issues around financial crime related to organised environmental crimes. I shall not repeat what I said then, but I and other careful observers were not satisfied with the Minister’s response. The response from the then Minister was extremely general:

“financial crime and money laundering, whether related to environmental crimes or not, is illegal and something that financial regulators, and this Government, already take extremely seriously. The FCA has a broad remit to tackle financial crime”.—[Official Report, 29/6/26; col. Grand Committee 371.]

That was a very general response that did not address the specific concern about environmental crime and the way in which many other jurisdictions are taking action in this area.

I acknowledge the support I have received from WWF in preparing this response, and I refer to a WWF Themis survey of 644 financial services professionals from 17 countries. It found that almost half the financial institutions sampled operated in high-risk sectors or areas involving environmental-financial crimes, yet more than one-quarter said they did not undertake specific related due diligence. Additionally, 60% of financial institutions surveyed had no land conversion risk policy in place. A 2025 survey of financial investigations units by the Egmont Group identified a lack of alignment of environmental laws with anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing standards, and a limitation on their ability to share data or conduct specific activities related to environmental crimes as regulatory constraints. Without explicit recognition of this through the regulatory principles of the FCA and the PRA, relevant actors are not required or equipped to respond with the necessary action. Indeed, in the above-mentioned survey, respondents said that self-regulation is not

“a sufficient driver of change when it comes to land conversion”,

and called it “optimistic” to think that financial institutions would commit to affirmative action with just voluntary frameworks in place.

I note that around the world, FATF recognises environmental crimes as predicate offences for money laundering. The European Union has strengthened its criminal law framework through the environmental crime directive, requiring member states to publish a national strategy on combating environmental crime offences by 2027. As an example from the global south, Zambia’s Economic and Financial Crimes Court, a division of the High Court, recently forfeited to the state a vast array of assets associated with a major illegal lobbying operation. Diplomatic momentum for the fourth protocol of the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime to address crimes against the environment is also advancing, with support from the UK. That is what we are saying internationally, but what are we doing domestically? As a global financial centre, the UK has a specific responsibility to ensure that it is taking effective action against environmental crimes globally and any involvement of our financial sector in those crimes, and can play an important role in achieving a stronger global approach.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 95 raises the issue of non-compete legislation. When this was raised in Committee, the Minister undertook to respond. His response was to refer to a 2025 working paper, but action is needed. Could I urge the Minister to pursue this and not to allow the report just to sit?

In Committee, the Minister commented that he was not an expert on employment law. That may be the case, but the ability to maintain confidentiality of important and expensive systems is vital in the financial services industry. Algorithms and sophisticated and complex computer systems are an essential part of today’s top-level financial service companies. They must be able to maintain the confidentiality of their systems.

Non-compete agreements are an essential part of this. Whether the Bill we are debating today is the right place for this is uncertain, but it must be dealt with if we wish to retain Great Britain’s predominant place in the industry—something that I hope the Minister favours. Even if non-compete is not precisely within his remit, he should certainly make it his business, in the interest of his department. I urge the Minister not to allow the 2025 report just to sit in a pending tray.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 97, which appears in this group in my name. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for providing us with powerful arguments, particularly for Amendment 17. I echo the noble Lord’s comments as, if the noble Baroness wishes to put this to the vote, the Green Party will certainly support it. We need to see the tech companies being made to pay for the huge profits they are collecting while continuing to allow illegality to operate in their spaces.

However, I will primarily speak to Amendment 97. I begin by acknowledging the work of Joshua Tjeransen, who is my King’s College London intern. He has identified this issue for me and done a great deal of work on this amendment. This amendment is about a different sort of fraud from that covered by the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; it is about ransomware. I am sure noble Lords have come across many cases of this; it is a great concern to businesspeople, individuals and institutions, particularly the NHS. It is where a computer system or database is locked and access is prevented. The ransomware takes it over, and companies are told, “Pay up or you will never get this back”.

It is worth thinking about the circumstances of this. Very often, payment is demanded in cryptocurrency. People are told, “If you don’t do this in the next hour, the figure will double and double again” and so on, through alerts appearing on someone’s computer screen. These are tremendously frightening, difficult, challenging circumstances to face.

The figures we have for this come from Report Fraud. In the year from April 2025, 323 UK organisations reported such an attack. More than half of them were small and medium-sized enterprises, and the average loss was £270,000, which for SMEs is a huge sum of money. I said “reported” because it is generally acknowledged by experts in the field that there is a real issue of stigma here. Companies and organisations do not want to admit that they have fallen victim to such a fraud, and it is generally agreed that those figures are the tip of the iceberg. The accepted advice from law enforcement is “Don’t pay”, but it is generally acknowledged, although it is very hard to put figures on it, that a lot of people are paying right now, and this must be very lucrative for some very nasty criminals.

I come to the amendment, which would insert a new clause that would place a duty on the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules within 12 months of Royal Assent prohibiting the firms it regulates from

“making, offering, authorising or facilitating a ransom payment”

and would prevent the insuring or indemnifying of anyone against such a ransom payment. Firms would have to notify the FCA within 72 hours of becoming aware of a ransom demand. The only exception provided is where the payment is needed to prevent an imminent risk to life or serious injury, and then only with the prior approval of the Secretary of State. It covers authorised persons and firms supervised by the FCA under the Payment Services Regulations and the Electronic Money Regulations.

I think it is worth going back over how we have got to the point where we still do not have any action. In January 2025, the Home Office consulted on three proposed measures on ransomware: a targeted ban on ransom payments by public sector bodies and operators of critical national infrastructure; a payment prevention regime under which other organisations would have to notify the Government before paying; and mandatory incident reporting. The response was reported on 22 July 2025 and recorded 72% support for a targeted ban. There was an announcement that all public sector bodies and CNI operators would be banned from paying, and there would be a notification requirement.

On 14 October 2025, answering a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the Jaguar Land Rover attack, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, told the House:

“The Home Office is progressing a new package of measures to protect UK businesses, and we will update the House accordingly”.—[Official Report, 14/10/25; col. 169.]


In December 2025, the Security Minister said that the ban remained a priority and would progress—noble Lords know the dreaded phrase—when parliamentary time allowed. You might think that there would be coverage of this in the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, but my understanding is that there is no coverage of such issues.

Why does this amendment work? Why can we do this through the Financial Services and Markets Bill? Nearly every payment will pass through a financial company. If there is any kind of scale to this at all, whoever the victim is, the money will go through a firm that the FCA supervises. A rule on these firms therefore reaches most payments made from the UK, not just payments by financial firms themselves. I think the amendment is elegant. It would not create a new offence or a general ban on businesses as the Public Bill Office said that that would be outside the scope of the Bill. Instead, it would place a duty on the FCA to create the rules within 12 months. This is a step forward in dealing with a critical issue that is affecting businesses and organisations right now and on which the Government have promised to act. It follows the Government’s own design.

I am not expecting the Minister to accept the amendment, and I am not going to put this to a vote because we have not had the time or capacity to work through the detail of exactly how this is written, but none the less I hope that we will hear from the Minister that there is going to be significant progress in this area very soon. I am really hoping not to hear the phrase “when parliamentary time allows” because the Government have done the consultation on this and have promised to act. We need to see protection in this fraud capital of the world—the UK—for firms. If ransoms cannot be paid, it will not be in the interests of criminals to put the effort in to try to get ransoms.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we are concerned about the scale of fraud, and in particular by the continued growth of authorised push payment fraud and other forms of online economic crime. The Government and the banks have made progress, but the truth is that it is hard to keep up with the scammers, and the sums at stake are significant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has explained. I therefore strongly welcome the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for an annual report.

My noble friend Lord Howard of Rising is right to be concerned about the future protection of commercially sensitive information as part of a competitive UK sector. I am glad he has brought his amendment back, and I hope the Minister will be able to provide an assurance that this will be addressed.

The amendments in this group raise important questions about transparency, monitoring and the practical steps that firms can take to identify scams earlier, warn consumers, share information more effectively and pay compensation where that is appropriate. Indeed, there has been considerable progress since the APP reimbursement regime was introduced in 2024. I always remember my card being used in Korea to buy £2,500 worth of Louis Vuitton luggage. That would not happen today, as banking procedures and scrutiny are so much better.

However, the proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is a difficult one, as it is not clear what the technology companies could do to stop fraud systematically. They are not passing money on in the same way as the banks do. That may have been what the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, was getting at in Committee when he responded to this amendment at that stage. New regulations of this kind could also have a chilling effect on the supply of online services in the UK, so more analysis is needed before the FCA introduces new rules. We believe this is an area where the Government and the regulators should be prepared to make progress, but we also understand the constraints.

It is also important that people learn to avoid scams with simple procedures such as face ID, and to take care over what they buy online. This should be an important part of education, and indeed Ofcom, working with the FCA and the tech companies, should be able to make more progress here. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on this important area and how he thinks we can best address this problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I am unable to answer the noble Lord’s question; might I write to him with an answer?

Amendment 20 was discussed in Committee and the Government’s position remains unchanged. As set out in Committee, a range of measures is already in place and further work is under way across government, regulators and industry. This includes firms using increasingly sophisticated fraud detection systems, confirmation of payee checks, work to improve data sharing between payment service providers and steps to ensure that fraud prevention is built into the design of future retail payments infrastructure.

Turning now to Amendment 95, concerning the protection of intellectual property, I agree that weak protections can be a drag on competitiveness. On non-compete clauses, in particular, there are no provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025 that would affect the use of non-compete clauses by financial services firms. The Government published a working paper on options for reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts at Budget 2025. We are currently reviewing responses and will respond to the working paper in due course. The focus of the paper was on options for reform of non-compete clauses in employment contracts. It does not consider reform to intellectual property law or other means to protect confidential information. The Government understand that a well-designed, balanced intellectual property system offers confidence for business investors and consumers to contribute to growing our economy.

Turning finally to Amendment 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I recognise the continued threat posed to the UK by ransomware criminals. Following public consultation last year, this Government are already taking forward work through the Home Office to break the business model of ransomware and provide law enforcement with the information it needs to understand, investigate and disrupt ransomware activity. This includes proposals for a targeted ban on ransomware payments and mandatory reporting for businesses above a certain size. Taken together, the Government consider that the objectives of these amendments are already addressed through the existing framework and work that is under way and do not believe that further statutory requirements are needed. With that in mind, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I ask for a potential timeframe on when the noble Lord expects to see progress on that work in the Home Office?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

Again, if the noble Baroness will accept it, I will write to her on that. I do not know the timetable offhand.

Scottish Government: Social Security Benefits

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I did not know about what the noble Lord says. I am more than happy to take that back to my DWP colleagues and to discuss it with them.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Scottish Government are using this social security spending to deliver a more humane system that treats people with dignity. We have recently had the family finances project from the University of Glasgow and the University of Manchester, which shows that the Scottish child payment has reduced levels of food insecurity and material deprivation for children by about eight percentage points compared with comparable populations in England. Will the English Government follow suit?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I think the noble Baroness means the UK Government. I know that the Scottish Greens are in coalition with the SNP in Scotland, so presumably she supports what they are doing. As I have said already, it is a matter for the Scottish Government. They have full responsibility for policy decisions in devolved areas and any spending they choose to undertake must come from within their own budgets.

Middle East: Economic Response

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It really does take a Brexit zealot to say that. Cutting tariffs may gain us 0.001% of GDP whereas Brexit itself has cost us a minimum of 4% of GDP, although estimates now say that it ranges from 6% to 8%. We are seeking to mitigate at the margins the huge damage done to the UK economy by Brexit, so the idea that this is some kind of Brexit benefit is absurd. Should we in due course re-enter the European Union? My personal view is that that is an inevitability: of course the UK will at one point re-enter the EU because that is absolutely in our national economic interest. In the meantime we are doing the European reset, and that is incredibly important in helping growth in our economy.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, a number of the questioners on this Statement have referred to the small scale of many of the measures in the Statement. One of them is that it confirms that bus travel across England will be free for children aged between five and 15 through the month of August. That might be compared to Scotland, where Green Party policy was brought in and continues with free bus travel permanently for all those under 22. Will the Government at least consider extending this measure to a broader age group and over a longer period? The Minister referred to the Milburn review. Young people often need to travel on buses to go to training, to job interviews and indeed to jobs, and free bus travel would be a great help to them.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I find myself having the unusual experience of agreeing with the noble Baroness. Bus use is incredibly important. It is highest among lower-income households for trips outside of London. People in the lowest household income quintile make around 1.7 times as many trips as the average person and 3.7 times as many of those in the highest income quintile, so it is a very progressive policy. I am pleased that the Chancellor was able to provide the DfT with over £100 million of additional funding for free bus travel for children aged five to 15 for the month of August. That costs £100 million just for one month, so this is not an inexpensive policy. Clearly, extending it further would be a matter for the next spending review.

Financial Services Reform

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question, and I pay tribute to his experience in the industry that he outlined. I do not agree with his view of the industry. I am incredibly proud of the financial services sector in this country: it makes a massive contribution to our economy, and it is incredibly important that we enable it to grow and that that growth feeds through to the real economy so we can see the investment in the real economy that we want to see.

My noble friend talks, perfectly correctly, about finding the right balance between risk and growth. As I say, we are not dismantling any of the architecture that was put in place in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and it is quite right that we do not do that, but we believe that the pendulum has swung too far towards regulating only for risk. It needs to regulate not just for risk but for growth, and that is the right thing to do.

I think my noble friend is wrong to say that we are in any way giving financial advice. We are trying to put in place what has been called a targeted support framework that enables people to access the help they need to make the right financial decisions for them, and that will be ready to support consumers by ISA season next year. It would enable authorised firms, not the Government, to proactively suggest appropriate products or courses of action, using limited information about a customer and their circumstances. That could include helping people to make decisions about how to access their pension, supporting people with excess cash savings to consider investing for the first time. I cannot believe that anyone would think that was anything but a good idea.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my question follows on from those of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Brixton and Lord Sikka, both of whom spoke about financialisation. Earlier this year, the head of UNCTAD—UN Trade and Development —Dr Anastasia Nesvetailova wrote a piece on a path out of the “finance curse”. It offered suggestions to global South countries—developing countries—using the UK as a case study of what to be aware of from the finance curse. She wrote that

“financialisation had progressed against the backdrop of deepening asymmetries—sectoral and regional—in incomes, wealth, employment and even access to public services”.

I think we would all have to agree with that. She went on to say that

“the system … appeared to serve the interests of global asset owners rather than those of the people of the United Kingdom”.

How are the Government going to ensure, if indeed their changes have the effect that they desire, that the benefits are going to trickle down to people outside the financial sector? How else is the rest of the economy going to benefit?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I have already made it clear in previous answers that I disagree with that analysis. It is not at all how we see the financial services sector.

How are people going to benefit? I think the 1.2 million people employed in the financial services sector right across the UK will benefit from that. That is a pretty substantial benefit. The noble Baroness will know that we need to get more investment into our economy, and we are not going to get that investment unless we have a growing and thriving financial services sector. So I am very clear that I disagree with the noble Baroness’s analysis.

Tackling Unsustainable Debt

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the global South has suffered for decades, trapped under an ideology imposed from the outside of privatisation, austerity and deregulation. Will the Minister and the Government ensure that future arrangements allow an escape from that ideology towards investment in the essential systems of health, education and democratic engagement?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That is exactly what our approach is designed to do. As I have said, multilateral action is the right way forward. The G20 common framework remains the best available tool for us to tackle debt vulnerabilities, bringing together traditional and newer creditors to co-ordinate on debt treatment, which is critical given the more diverse creditor landscape that we currently face.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the smile; it is always most welcome. On the route of the trans-Pennine route upgrade, she spoke about the importance of transparency. I think the best thing will be to write to her and set it out in full, so that there is no misunderstanding.

In terms of farming, I hope she welcomes the £2.7 billion per year in sustainable farming and nature recovery. I think that is a very substantial investment in the things she spoke about.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, there have been a number of references to NISTA, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. The Statement says:

“Based in the Treasury, NISTA brings oversight of infrastructure strategy and delivery together, and integrates assurance, design and delivery assessments”.


The Treasury is not the expert in transport, energy or social housing infrastructure. Many Members of your Lordships’ House often lament the dictatorship of the Treasury over other government decisions. Is this not a further concentration of power within one department in government, when actually we need the people with the expertise and knowledge to have the oversight, not this concentration in the Treasury?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Well, the noble Baroness might not expect me to agree with her on that; I think the more Treasury, the better, from my point of view. So, no, I disagree with her, but of course NISTA is there to work for the whole Government and not just the Treasury. It has to be based somewhere and it makes sense for it to be based in the Treasury, given the Treasury’s responsibility for the 10-year infrastructure strategy, which it will be overseeing. Of course, NISTA’s expertise will be available to Ministers right across government.

Spending Review 2025

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will do exactly as my noble friend asks and pass that on. The important announcements yesterday that she mentions are incredibly welcome. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Chancellor also announced the dormant assets initiative to get more creative industries into more schools, so that the huge advantages and benefits of that kind of creative industry are available no longer only to privileged children but to far more children in state schools.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I can only welcome the 3% increase in NHS funding in real terms, although it is below the long-term average over decades of 3.6% increases. The chief executive of the NHS Confederation has said that this

“won’t be enough to cover the increasing cost of new treatments”.

With that in mind, it is disappointing that while “public services”, “public finances” and “public debt” appear in the Chancellor’s speech, there is no use of the phrase “public health”. Given that the NHS is under such pressure, surely the Government should look to decrease the demand for healthcare by improving the health of the nation, which is, compared with comparable countries, extremely poor. That would mean measures to deal with water, air and other pollution, our broken food system and the poor quality and lack of green spaces. Will the Government look at making the nation healthier to help the NHS?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes. The noble Baroness says that we are not spending enough on the health service. Over the next five years, £30 billion will be invested in day-to-day spending, with over £5 billion specifically allocated to address the most critical issues. The noble Baroness likes to tell us how she does not believe in economic growth. If we do not have economic growth, how will we find the money to fund our public services? I sat through the national insurance Bill. The noble Baroness opposed it and the additional money that it brought into our National Health Service. She says that this is not enough money. How exactly is she going to find the money? She is mouthing “wealth taxes”. If she thinks a wealth tax is going to raise that many billion pounds, I would love to see her proposals.

British Steel

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

Creating an ongoing, viable concern is absolutely the aspiration for the sector, not necessarily with regard to British Steel specifically, but the much broader sector. As I said earlier, we have the immediate-term question of how we make sure that the day-to-day operation of British Steel is ongoing and running. That second longer-term piece is how we make it a financially sustainable industry and one that is able to wash its own face economically. To that part, that is where that steel strategy is really core. With regard to the specifics of what we are spending in the here and now, that is absolutely information that will be made available within part of the department’s accounts when they are published.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the annual volume of steel scrap exported from the UK was 7.22 million tonnes in 2023, 8.24 million tonnes in 2022 and 7.4 million tonnes in 2021. That figure is not going down: it is bobbling around, which is a product of both the supply of scrap steel from within the UK and what is happening in markets to which it is being exported, particularly the Indian subcontinent. My question is about the Government’s long-term vision. That amount of steel would ensure that if we were to recycle that ourselves under the best possible environmental conditions, we would obviously be creating jobs and opportunities to secure a supply of steel for the just transition that we need. Is the Government’s long-term vision a circular economy in steel so we are not exporting scrap steel?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I can confirm that thinking about how we create that circular economy within the steel industry and how we think about scrap steel will absolutely be a key aspect of the steel strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I am more than happy to follow up specifically on that matter with you separately.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister spoke about seeking new private sector involvement in Scunthorpe and the steelworks. We have seen so much private sector involvement in sectors such as the water industry, with essentially the privatisation of profits and cash and the socialisation of debts and costs. Can the noble Baroness assure me that that will not happen here?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I think we have been clear about the best way forward: we would like this to be a commercially run business, with private investment and government acting in support. But we will do whatever it takes to give the UK the best chance to safeguard the future of steel-making. That is why we would talk about the most likely outcome, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, being that of nationalisation.