World Economic Outlook: UK Growth and Inflation

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely confirm to the noble Lord all three of those points. As he knows, the price cap is giving households certainty on their bills until July, ahead of the winter months. As we respond to this crisis, we must absolutely learn from the mistakes of the past, some of which he mentioned. The previous Government pushed up borrowing, interest rates, inflation and mortgage costs with an unfunded, untargeted package of support under Liz Truss, and they gave the most support to the wealthiest households. We will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government. We are planning for every eventuality so that we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most, acting within our fiscal rules, as the noble Lord said, to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the economic forecasts set out by the IMF and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, are very concerning from a national standpoint. Party passions aside, I believe that we must pursue a national growth path in the national interest. That needs to include a reduction, not an increase, in regulation, especially in building and planning; a cut in welfare spending, as we have heard; support for enterprise; and full utilisation of our energy resources. Does the Minister agree with that?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, and we are doing most of that, but the noble Baroness is opposing most of it. She said that we need to pursue a growth path. She will know that one of the most important things for growth is keeping inflation and interest rates as low as possible, but her party has unfunded proposals to deal with this crisis that would stoke inflation and put up interest rates. Exactly the wrong thing to do now would be to have a knee-jerk response to this crisis that would put household finances at risk. During the last energy shock, the previous Government got the response completely wrong, which meant higher inflation, higher interest rates and higher taxes. We will not repeat those mistakes.

Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, these instruments are being taken together and I shall address them accordingly in the light of the helpful introduction by the Minister. However, before turning to the specific provisions, I would like to raise some broader questions about the Government’s approach to financial services regulation.

First, on the matter of dynamic alignment with the European Union, there has been considerable speculation about whether the Government intend to pursue closer regulatory alignment with the EU in financial services. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the Government’s position on this. My understanding is that the City itself has moved away from enthusiasm for dynamic alignment, recognising that regulatory autonomy, properly exercised, offers competitive advantages that should not be lightly surrendered. There is also the important point about regulatory uncertainty, which the Minister mentioned and which we all know stifles growth and deters investment. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether dynamic alignment remains under active consideration in this area and, if so, in what form?

Secondly and relatedly, on progress with EU-related regulatory changes, the Government have previously indicated certain commitments regarding implementation timelines for their reforms. Can the Minister update the Committee on whether these commitments are being maintained and the proportion of EU-derived legislation that has already been replaced, and give some indication of the timescales involved?

I turn to the instruments themselves, which are technical but important for the direction of travel. The first instrument provides transitional relief for the new market risk internal model framework, inserting a one-year pause before full implementation, for reasons that the Minister has set out. The second instrument restates and domesticates EU capital requirements regulation definitions into UK statute, addressing what would otherwise be a gap when existing EU-derived definitions fall away.

I have several questions for the Minister, some of which come from a slightly different perspective to those from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. On the definitional instrument, any process of transposition carries some risk that meanings shift in translation. Has any assessment been made of that risk? Have the PRA and FCA reviewed the new definitions from an operational standpoint to identify any areas where domesticated versions could give rise to interpretive uncertainty?

On the transitional instrument, the fact that it is necessary at all implies something concerning about the readiness of firms, the complexity of the new framework or both. The Minister also mentioned developments overseas, but can he confirm whether the new market risk framework, once fully in force, will represent a material increase in compliance burdens? He will know that this is something I am always concerned about. What concrete steps are being taken during 2027 to ensure that firms will genuinely be ready for full implementation, other than finding themselves reaching for another transitional instrument in 12 months’ time?

I should also like to know how much additional regulatory capital banks are likely to have to hold under the new rules, when they are finally implemented. Last year, the Financial Policy Committee concluded— I thought, helpfully—that overall bank capital levels could be 1% lower. Did the FPC take the trading book changes we are discussing into account?

On the questions of regulatory capacity, is there a risk of a bottleneck in the PRA’s model approval process? Has the PRA assessed its own readiness to manage applications without that becoming a practical choke point? Alternatively, and if the answer to that is reassuring, is it because, given the complexity, only big banks with big trading desks will opt for model approval under FTRB?

Turning to broader international comparisons, how does the UK’s implementation timeline approach to approvals compare with other major jurisdictions? If our framework proves materially more demanding than equivalent regimes elsewhere, there is a genuine risk of competitive disadvantage in global wholesale markets.

I heard from some involved that our regulators feel good about implementing international rules, while the US—and, indeed, the EU—are less driven to comply quickly or in detail. Can the Minister give the Committee his assessment of where the UK stands in relation to its peers and reiterate his commitment to growth in financial services, which he mentioned in his introductory remarks?

Finally, on the power to extend the transitional period, can the Minister set out the criteria by which the Treasury would judge whether an extension is warranted and what signals would prompt the Government to consider using that power? The Minister said that it would be time-limited and used only if necessary, but I am not quite sure what that means.

The integrity of our prudential supervisory framework depends on sound legal foundations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has always emphasised. These instruments appear to address that, but technical competence is not the same as strategic direction. As we build out a domestically rooted regulatory framework, the question of whether that framework is orientated toward competitiveness and growth, and not merely toward prudential conservatism, becomes pressing.

I was glad to hear the Minister mention both growth and the importance of SMEs, but the Committee will no doubt recall the report published by the Financial Services Regulation Committee on this subject and the good debate it prompted in Grand Committee, for which the Minister was sadly unable to be present. As several of us stated, the regulators are still too risk-averse and their culture needs to change. The report by that respected committee found that the competitiveness and growth objectives were “work in progress”.

In conclusion, is the Minister able to tell us how the Government are keeping up pressure on the regulators on these important objectives, and perhaps provide some live examples of what they are actually doing on competitiveness and growth?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their extensive questions on these relatively modest SIs. I have some answers to the questions posed by the noble Baronesses. I do not have all the answers but I will, of course, write with the answers that I do not have to hand.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked me, as we have debated many times in the past, about risk and growth. She knows my position on this. We are not undermining many of the incredibly important elements of a system that were put in place post financial crash. We are, though, seeking to tilt the system slightly more towards growth and away from regulating purely for risk.

The noble Baroness asked whether this was a race to the bottom to the lowest common denominator and whether we were undermining the strength of standards in the UK regulations. Of course, as she knows, it is an asset to the UK that the PRA is a global leader in promoting strong international standards, having played an important role in developing the Basel standards and now implementing those standards in the UK. The UK’s priority for Basel implementation has always been aligned implementation across the major jurisdictions, in particular the US. The UK is pressing ahead with implementation, as it has committed to do, while putting in place transitional measures to reduce operational complexity while the US finalises its approach.

The uncertainty surrounding the US implementation of Basel 3.1, particularly in relation to the market risk elements of their package, meant that a UK implementation date of 1 January 2027 would be materially out of line. Therefore, the decision was taken to delay the UK’s implementation of the market risk rules for new internal models to facilitate alignment of implementation dates as much as possible.

The noble Baroness asked whether we were adjusting to President Trump’s perspective. I do not believe that is the case at all. She asked me about delaying Basel to defend against CRD VI. The Treasury is aware of developments relating to Article 21c and is monitoring the position. The Treasury engages regularly with EU counterparts on a range of financial services and banking regulatory matters. Strengthening our relationships with international partners, including the EU, is a key focus of the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked me initially about dynamic alignment with the EU. She will know that much of the commentary at the moment is speculation about the forthcoming King’s Speech, and I am obviously not going to comment on what may or may not be contained in it. Specifically on financial services and alignment with the EU, the UK is not directly linking our implementation with that of the EU. The UK has published its Basel package and continues to plan to implement a Basel package that aligns with international standards by 1 January 2030. However, if any jurisdiction releases proposals that may have a material impact on the competitiveness of the UK financial services sector, we will work closely with the PRA to address these impacts as needed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about definitions and whether they may be changed in any way. We consulted on the legislation at Mansion House last year and sought views from industry and the regulators to ensure that the effect of the definitions remained the same, and no issues were raised throughout that process. The noble Baroness also asked me about increasing admin burdens from market risk rules. The PRA has designed its Basel package to result in an overall capital level that remains stable and will be no more complex to comply with.

The noble Baroness also asked me how the PRA is ensuring that its model approval is effective. The PRA’s work is obviously supported by the Government. We support what it is doing to develop a more responsive and agile approach to banks, using its own internal risk models for capital requirements. This in turn could help improve competition and lending in a mortgage market, allowing banks to invest more into the UK. In March, the PRA set out changes to its approval processes for firms with existing models, including enhanced pre-application engagement, to help resolve difficult issues before formal submission, dedicated submission slots and a commitment to complete quality checks within four weeks and review complete applications within six months.

The noble Baroness also asked me about how UK banks will prepare for implementation. The UK has published proposals for Basel 3.1 which strengthen the resilience of our banking system and deliver the certainty banks need to finance investment and growth in the UK. This announcement is a positive example of the UK’s FSMA model of regulation, providing a package tailored to UK needs and a clear plan for implementation, giving banks the certainty they need to plan and invest for the long term.

The noble Baroness also asked me to restate my commitment to growth in financial services; I am more than happy to do that. I am aware that both noble Baronesses asked me a couple more questions that I do not have answers to immediately, but I promise I will write on the specifics of those. In the meantime, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Middle East: Economic Update

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

This is not a war that we started, nor is it a war that we joined—notwithstanding the advice of the opposition parties—but it is a war that will have an impact on our country. The challenges may be significant, but I promise to do what is right and fair, being responsive in a changing world and responsible in the national interest. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, for the third time in as many weeks, the Chancellor came before the other place on Tuesday and once again delivered a Statement remarkable only for its lack of substance.

I welcome the confirmation respecting nuclear power, including the implementation of the Fingleton review, which should help to accelerate construction. The references to relations with the EU are less convincing. What price will we be expected to pay for these supposed benefits? The Government’s history of giving in unnecessarily to the EU does not give confidence. We are also suspicious of claims about the need for new powers regarding alleged price-gouging. This smacks of playing to a not very well-informed gallery, but what exactly do the Government intend here?

The Chancellor has praised countries such as Norway and Canada for increasing oil and gas production and for playing their part in securing energy supplies during a time of conflict. Yet here at home the Government refuse to do the same. The Energy Secretary continues to block increased production in the North Sea, so the Government applaud others for strengthening their energy security while wilfully weakening our own. That is pure masochism.

We could scarcely be entering this crisis in a weaker position. We face the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world, with consumer prices not far behind. Just today, the OECD has said that the war in the Middle East will hit UK growth hardest of all, with inflation set to accelerate. The Government speak of reducing dependence on energy imports, yet their own actions are driving us in precisely the opposite direction. That is a self-inflicted vulnerability.

This is a dangerous position to be in. I gently say to the Minister that the public will not thank the Government for ideological gestures; they will expect practical action to secure our energy future. It ought not to be beyond the wit of government to expand green energy supplies while also sustaining supply through oil and gas—which we will simply import more of if we do not produce it at home.

I will also briefly mention the defence investment plan. It was very unedifying to see the Prime Minister discomforted when he was asked about it at the most recent Liaison Committee meeting. On Tuesday, the Defence Select Committee heard from industry leaders that without the defence investment plan—which is now well overdue—some defence manufacturers are going bust, while others have been left in “paralysis” and “bleeding cash”. The plan was originally expected last autumn, but it has been repeatedly postponed, despite repeated warnings that our Armed Forces face a £28 billion funding gap. When will we see the plan?

The Chancellor said that her response to the crisis in the Middle East would be “responsive” and “responsible”. What on earth is responsible about this: a refusal to agree a defence funding plan when the MoD faces a £28 billion black hole, British defence firms going under—and all at a moment of acute global instability, when our sovereign territory has been attacked and our citizens are being threatened at home?

Our economic and defence situation is perilous. Gilt yields are at levels not seen since the 2008 financial crisis. Inflation and employment are disturbingly high. Our defences are in a mess. Taxes, borrowing and spending are at record levels and interest rates are going the wrong way. No wonder a respected commentator said this week that he had never been so concerned that the person nominally in charge of the economy—the Chancellor—was manifestly out of their depth. We need better than this.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, if this war with Iran continues, and especially if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed as we approach autumn, the global economy will be in serious trouble and the crisis will impact severely—directly on energy prices and, more broadly, on the cost of living. There was far too little in the Chancellor’s speech to give ordinary folk, never mind the markets, real reassurance. People are not naive. Simply to repeat the steps that the Government planned for the economy anyway in the pre-Iran war world is not sufficient.

The Chancellor indicated that any support beyond changes that are already in the system would be targeted at those who are most in need. What does that mean? Is it limited to the 6 million people who claim welfare or pension credit? Is it correct that the Treasury lacks the capacity to identify and assist those who do not qualify for those benefits but are still very low earners? What should the earnings threshold be for support? Will the Chancellor act immediately to, at the very least, zero-rate VAT on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas? Will she introduce a proper price-cap mechanism for off-grid fuels? Will the Government also reverse their senseless cuts to home insulation programmes, which will be important to a wide range of people?

In her speech, the Chancellor failed to recognise the dire position of small businesses. Inflation in January pre-war was at 3%. We have found today that UK business activity is growing at its slowest pace since September, with a huge jump in manufacturing input prices. At such a time, tax, NICs and other blows from the Budget will fall on small businesses in April—a few days away. This Government seem cavalier about loading small businesses with additional costs, even though they are the backbone of our economy and jobs, and sustain our local communities.

The Government know that small businesses face a broken energy market that leaves most of them paying inflated energy prices. Will they now instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate suppliers that are blocking small business access to the best energy deals? Will they now change the business rate system so that small businesses can improve their energy efficiency without facing business rate penalties? Will they adopt the idea of an energy security bank to provide low-cost loans for households and small businesses to invest in energy efficiency?

When the country is anxious, it needs a speech from the Chancellor that recognises and responds to the changed reality. Will someone from the Government please give that speech before anxiety becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?

HBOS: Fraud Investigation

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am afraid I do not know the answer to my noble friend’s question. I will very happily check and write to him in due course.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the truth is that this was an appalling state of affairs, with many small and medium enterprises driven into insolvency as a result of the HBOS Reading fraud. Following the 2017 convictions which the Minister has mentioned, courts made several Proceeds of Crime Act confiscation orders—for example, a £10 million order against David and Alison Mills—yet their criminal benefit was assessed to be far higher, at around £69 million. Can the Minister tell us how much has been recovered and returned to victims to date? Will the Minister commit to a victim-first distribution plan for any further recoveries?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I said to the House previously, the independent Foskett Panel was established by Lloyds Banking Group in 2020, in part following engagement with the FCA and Treasury, to determine the right level of compensation in individual cases. As I said before, the review is independent. I understand that it has made its determinations and settled the compensation for the majority of victims, although there are a few outstanding cases. I hope this work will be able to conclude in the near future.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 25th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 1B and 1C in lieu—

1B: Clause 1, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(3A) The amendments made by this section do not have effect in relation to basic rate taxpayers until the assessment required by section (Economic and behavioural impact assessment: basic rate taxpayers: Great Britain) has been laid before Parliament.”

1C: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Economic and behavioural impact assessment: basic rate taxpayers: Great Britain
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare an economic and behavioural impact assessment of the expected effects of the provisions of this Act on basic rate taxpayers in Great Britain, and
(b) lay that assessment before Parliament.
(2) The assessment must, in particular, include—
(a) an analysis of the expected behavioural effects of the provisions of this Act, including changes to pension contribution patterns, salary sacrifice arrangements, and employment practices, and
(b) an assessment of the expected impact on net incomes, pension savings, and pension adequacy,
for basic rate taxpayers.
(3) In preparing the assessment, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the adequacy of retirement incomes, and
(b) the effect of the £2,000 cap on long-term financial security,
for basic rate taxpayers.””

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I was disappointed that the Government sought to have all amendments passed by your Lordships’ House treated as engaging financial privilege. In light of this, we are unable to insist upon the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House. However, the issues we have raised remain of real significance. There is no sign that the Government have seriously engaged with the concerns we expressed. Significant features remain undefined.

The amendments we have brought forward today reflect a concern raised by many noble Lords on Report: crucially, that the Government have not undertaken the necessary analysis to understand how the Bill will affect basic rate taxpayers, those repaying student loans, and SMEs and charities.

The most worrying thing about the Bill is that it will reduce the incentive to save, particularly among the less well paid. Whether Ministers like it or not, it strikes at the heart of this and will inevitably reduce pension adequacy. The Minister himself has admitted that many of those paying the basic rate of tax and even some earning under £30,000 a year will be affected.

Not only will the Bill affect savers and pensions adequacy, it will impose costs on businesses and charities. The detail on these points is, concerningly, seriously lacking. Our three amendments in lieu and the consequential amendments dealing with Northern Ireland require a proper assessment of the projected economic and behavioural impact of this policy on those three groups. Crucially, this work has to be carried out before the Act comes into force.

First, for basic rate taxpayers there is a very real concern that this policy will reach far beyond those it is ostensibly aimed at. Individuals on modest incomes—those paying tax at the basic rate—may find themselves drawn into its effects. They are ordinary working people, often making careful decisions about how much they can afford to save. Yet we have not seen a clear assessment of how their net incomes will be affected, how their pension-saving behaviour may change or what this will mean for the adequacy of their retirement incomes.

Secondly, for those repaying student loans, the interaction between salary sacrifice, pension contributions and student loan repayments is not straightforward. There is a real risk here that some individuals repaying student loans could face higher effective deductions from their income or altered incentives around saving for retirement. Our amendments would ensure that the Government properly assess the impact of these interactions.

Thirdly and finally, small and medium-sized enterprises and charities are the backbone of our economy and our communities. They operate with limited margins and limited administrative capacity. Changes to employment costs, compliance requirements or remuneration structures can have tangible effects on hiring, wages and growth.

The Government must be able to answer these questions. By how much will this Bill increase their costs? Will it change employment practices? Will it have an impact on wage growth or the critical area of job creation? This Bill would change how people save, how employers structure pay, and how organisations make decisions.

Our amendments would simply require the Government to set out clearly and transparently what the effects are expected to be. They would offer the Government a constructive way forward and would seem to get round the problem of financial privilege. In responding, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain more clearly precisely why these provisions do not come into force until 2029. It looks as if this matter is regarded by the Government not as a serious measure but as a nasty present to their successors.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to this group of amendments in lieu. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for returning these issues to the House despite the very disappointing decision to cloak all our previous amendments in the financial privilege. Up and down the country, SME businesses are horrified by this. They have had a wall of difficult legislation sent their way, such as the national insurance increase and the Employment Rights Bill, so they have not focused on this, but those I talked to who have focused their mind on it are very unhappy to say the least with the possibility of this Bill affecting their business.

I want to focus on one particular issue. We have heard repeatedly in recent weeks of the position facing graduates repaying student loans, which is simply not fair. For those on plan 2 loans in particular, the picture is particularly stark: an anaemic jobs market, high rents, high living costs and, on top of that, what amounts to a 9% graduate tax with interest rates of around 6.2%, meaning that for many, full repayment is not possible. I urge the Minister and others to speak to their children or their grandchildren who will tell them that they are put off by this Bill.

This policy now risks making the matter worse. It threatens to increase the effective burden on graduates precisely when they are trying to do the right thing by saving for their retirement through salary sacrifice. They see the costs that are ahead of them when they retire. For many, particularly recent graduates, disposable income is already stretched to the limit with rents and the cost of living, so they have little scope to save beyond the auto-enrolment minimum, which, as we have heard, is insufficient to provide savings for their longer life. If the Government undermine the salary sacrifice regime, they risk entrenching a generation who simply cannot afford to save enough for their retirement.

In conclusion, that is why this amendment from my noble friend matters. It asks the Government to do what they should already have done: properly assess the impact of this policy in relation to student loans. I do not think anything the Minister said specifically addressed the issue of the impact on students. I did not see it in any of the Explanatory Notes or anywhere else. It may have been because they did not think it affected it or they did not realise it, but it has not been done. In the absence of that work, the least the Government can do is pause and consider the long-term consequences before pressing ahead. The Treasury now has the opportunity and the responsibility to get this right. I urge the Minister and all other Peers to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

On the topic of impact assessments, I remind noble Lords of the information that we have already published. The tax information impact note sets out the expected impacts of the policy on individuals, employers and the Exchequer. The policy costing note sets out detail on the costing of the measure, including the tax base, static costing and a summary of behavioural responses expected by employers and employees. The Office for Budget Responsibility published its economic and fiscal outlook, which provides the OBR’s independent scrutiny of the policy costing. The OBR also published a supplementary forecast note which provides additional information it received prior to last year’s Budget.

I also remind noble Lords that the expected behavioural impacts of this measure have been set out in the policy costing note and both the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook and supplementary note. Both the Government and the OBR have been very transparent about the expected behavioural responses by employers and individuals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, asked about the 2029 implementation date. As I have said already, we chose a long lead-in time of April 2029 to give employers maximum time to prepare for the changes. As I have mentioned before, HMRC is engaging with employers, payroll providers and software developers to deliver the changes in the most suitable way with the fewest administrative burdens for businesses of all sizes which use salary sacrifice.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, spoke about small and medium-sized enterprises. I say again that the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees and SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. The noble Lord also mentioned students. He is absolutely right; as I said before, it is right that we focus on outcomes for younger generations, particularly given that, over the past 14 years, they saw their fees trebled, interest rates increased and maintenance grants scrapped. The £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under 30 repaying student loans who are saving into their pension are completely unaffected by this measure.

These are fair and balanced reforms. They give employers many years to prepare and they ensure that both our pensions system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. The £2,000 cap protects lower-earning employees who use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions and preserves the tax benefit of salary sacrifice for all employees on the first £2,000 of their contributions.

Importantly, these changes leave the tax reliefs on regular pension contributions completely untouched. These reliefs are worth £70 billion a year and are available to all workers and employers, not just those who use salary sacrifice. For the reasons that I have set out, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, not to press her Motions. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response, particularly on the question of the behavioural assessments that we have had. They are really not fit for purpose. I give notice that will I seek to test the opinion of the House on Motion A1 and, if successful, on further Motions.

Reducing Government Spending

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with everything my noble friend says. The legacy of underinvestment from the previous Government still affects the economy today. When we won the election, private sector investment was the lowest in the whole G7. Public sector investment was no better and was set to fall again from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP. We have invested £120 billion of additional capital investment. The OBR estimates the eventual growth impact of this increase in capital investment as adding 1.4% to GDP. As I have said before, cutting this and returning to austerity would be the very worst thing that we could do for growth. Unlike today’s Conservative Party, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the facts that were included in my noble friend’s Question show that we face a very troubling position on the public finances. I think the Chancellor’s Statement has done nothing to reassure the markets today. The Government’s economic policy is not fit for purpose, if it ever was. Do the Government recognise the seriousness of the position, and what do they propose to do about it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We do. As I said already, and as we know, the full economic impact of the conflict will depend on its severity and duration, but this year borrowing falls by almost one percentage point to its lowest level for six years, 4.3%. This is the largest fall in the deficit since 2016. For the first time since 2004, we will be borrowing less than the rest of the G7 on average, something the previous Government did not achieve in their 14 years in power. I should point out that these falls in borrowing are as a result of some tough decisions that we have taken on the public finances. The noble Baroness and the party opposite have opposed every single one of those decisions we have taken to get the public finances under control.

Spring Forecast Statement

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, my first point is that the world economic situation now is very different from that existing at the time of the Spring Statement, let alone that in place when the finance Bill was introduced—different and significantly worse. The Middle East war has overturned economic expectations, especially optimistic ones.

A major factor in this deterioration is, of course, increased oil and gas prices, which are an inevitable consequence of political instability in the Middle East. This exacerbates the unfortunate effects of the Government’s own policies, which all agree have led to the highest fuel prices in the developed world. The resulting inflation, already mentioned by the Minister, adds to of the elevated levels we have already experienced during the Chancellor’s time in office. That in turn risks pushing interest rates higher, meaning rising mortgage costs for homeowners and greater pressure on household finances.

Investors are now pricing in a 70% chance that the Bank of England will increase rates by a quarter point before the end of the year having previously expected two quarter-point cuts this year; unfortunately, gilt yields have jumped here more than in any other G7 country.

Public finances are already under severe strain. Borrowing is running higher than forecast when the Government took office, and the country is now spending well over £100 billion a year simply servicing debt.

Since this Government came into office, gilt yields are up, growth is down, inflation is up, unemployment is up, debt is up, and the UK goes into this potential energy crisis already facing some of the highest energy prices in the world. It is extraordinary that Mr Ed Miliband, at a time when we face some of the greatest fuel insecurity in modern history, is content for the country to rely on oil from the Middle East but is against investing in the oil and gas from our North Sea.

This is a very serious moment. When the global outlook darkens, our domestic economic resilience matters more than ever. Yet the Government’s stewardship of the economy has left the country more exposed to shocks like this, and, when that happens, it is ordinary taxpayers who end up paying the price.

A lot has been said about the Government’s level of preparedness on the military front, but what is also true is that they were poorly prepared on an economic front. The economy that has developed under this Government and this Chancellor is profoundly precarious—and we are finding ourselves at the mercy of events.

The Minister has again waxed lyrical about the legacy of the last Government. There were things we did wrong, notably on immigration, but I remind the House that we had to cope with the legacy of the financial crisis, Covid and the Ukraine war, but we still delivered low inflation and an economy that was growing, and we now have a new Conservative leader with a refreshing determination to change things.

I turn to the Spring Statement. This was largely a non-event. Once the rhetoric—feeble rhetoric at that—is stripped away, it is difficult to identify any clear substance in what the Chancellor had to say. There were a few fairy tales, such as the Chancellor’s willingness to blame everyone else, from Trump to Putin, for the state of our economy—when, the last time I checked, she is the Minister responsible.

Looking at the statistics, we see that unemployment is rising sharply, hitting a staggering 7.6% in the capital, including a nine-year high for young Londoners. Youth unemployment in London is above that for the eurozone because of massively tightened employment regulations and much-reduced economic incentives to employ them through changes to NICs and the minimum wage. Yesterday’s youth jobs grant is a drop in the ocean and a poor attempt by the Government to cover up the immense harm they have done to employment in this country since assuming office.

Meanwhile, the OBR has predicted that the Government will spend £333 billion on welfare this year, at 10.9% of GDP, and by 2030-31 it is forecast to be £407 billion, at 11.7% of GDP. Working people will be asked to pay ever more in tax to fund the Government’s failure to get people back to work. Above all, the OBR has downgraded its forecast for growth from 1.4% to just 1.1%, which in truth amounts to growth that is barely there at all. When elected, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor talked endlessly about growth as their prime objective, promising planning reform, speedy infrastructure investment, world-leading AI and a skills revolution—all good things which I supported—but the delivery has been abysmal. Now, they have almost stopped talking about growth, in favour of vain efforts to subsidise the cost of living. History tells us that subsidies do not constitute a viable long-term strategy. Indeed, the OBR warns that inflation is expected to rise again, bringing with it the real prospect of higher mortgage rates and higher borrowing costs for the Government.

The reality for working people is stark. Wages are being eroded by rising prices, while taxes continue to climb. Millions more people will be dragged into higher tax bands by the so-called stealth tax of frozen income tax thresholds, now locked in place until April 2031. Despite all this, the Chancellor has boasted that her economic plan is the right one for Britain. I really doubt whether anyone believes that. What Britain needs is growth, jobs and investment. What the Chancellor has delivered is rising unemployment, ever- expanding welfare and a flatlining economy. The failure to tackle welfare reform is particularly worrying when we need to fund extra defence spending to protect ourselves and our citizens in an increasingly dangerous world. As it is, we are not yet on the path to prosperity.

I now turn to the Bill. First, perhaps the Minister can kindly confirm that the fuel duty increase of 5p provided for in the Bill is being delayed. With oil prices sky-high, this makes good sense, as we have argued.

This Bill lays bare the Government’s priorities. It makes a clear and deliberate choice to raise taxes on those who work, save and invest and to use a substantial share of that money to expand the welfare bill. In doing so, the Government are targeting and taxing precisely those people who sustain the productive heart of our economy—namely, savers who put money aside, investors who back enterprise, and the businesses that create jobs and growth.

Take the continued freezing of the income tax thresholds. This is fiscal drag on an enormous scale. Around 800,000 people will be pulled into the basic rate of income tax and around 1 million more will be dragged into the higher rate. By 2030, it is expected that one in four taxpayers will be paying either the higher or the additional rate of income tax. It does not stop there. In addition to the unfair arrangements for salary sacrifice, which this House has voted against, the repayment threshold for student loans is frozen, in effect imposing another hidden tax on younger generations starting their careers. Even those citizens who rely solely on the state pension are now at risk of being pulled into the income tax net.

The Government are reaching into the pockets of those who invest in Britain. The 2% increase in the tax on dividends, a £1.2 billion tax grab, sends exactly the wrong signal. Instead of encouraging investment in British companies and rewarding those who take risks to build and grow businesses, it penalised them. It is no surprise that 16,500 of them last year signalled their intention to move abroad.

We then come to the deeply troubling changes to IHT, the family farm and family business taxes. Just before Christmas, under enormous pressure, the Government attempted a partial retreat, but let us be clear: this so-called concession does not solve the problem. Many farms and family businesses may own valuable land or machinery, but they operate on tight margins. A paper valuation is not the same as spare cash sitting in the bank. The consequences are predictable. When faced with this kind of uncertainty, businesses do not expand; they pull back, they postpone investment, they do not buy new equipment or improve their restaurants, and, as we have seen, they reduce employee numbers.

Before I close, I should refer to the troubling letter that I have received from the Chartered Institute of Taxation about the difficulties that the various IHT changes will cause for personal representatives of the deceased, the costs in administration due to the Bill’s complexity and the defects of the tax avoidance provisions. It will not be easier for taxpayers, as the Minister suggested.

When we step back and look at the Spring Statement and the finance Bill, a clear picture emerges of the direction in which this Government are taking the country. Instead of policies that reward work, encourage investment and drive growth, we see rising taxes, a growing welfare bill and a struggling economy. The people who carry the greatest burden under this Government are precisely those who sustain our economy: the families who work hard and pay their taxes, the entrepreneurs who take risks to start and grow businesses, the investors who back innovation, and the farmers and family farms who keep our communities and supply chains alive. A healthy economy is built on confidence—the confidence to invest, the confidence to hire and the confidence to plan for the future. The Spring Statement and the finance Bill will give no confidence to anybody. On the evidence before us today, it is clear that the Government are moving in precisely the wrong direction, at a time of international challenge. Against that rather difficult background, I very much look forward to the valedictory speech of the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the cost of pension salary sacrifice was set to treble to £8 billion a year by the end of this decade. That increase has been driven mostly by high earners, with additional rate taxpayers tripling their salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. This includes individuals sacrificing their bonuses without paying any income tax and national insurance contributions on them. The status quo is neither fair nor fiscally sustainable. We simply cannot afford to allow the cost of pension salary sacrifice to balloon, benefiting predominantly higher earners.

The Bill therefore introduces a cap of £2,000 under which no employer or employee national insurance contributions will be charged on any pension contributions. It protects ordinary workers by using salary sacrifice and limits the impact on employers while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected.

Saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, will also remain hugely tax-advantageous under these changes. The Government currently provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance contributions relief on pension contributions each year. That spend will be entirely unaffected by these changes. These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect lower and middle earners. They give employers many years to prepare. They preserve the incentives that underpin workplace pension saving and they ensure that the tax system is kept on a sustainable footing. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as we said at Second Reading, in Committee and again on Report, this is a poorly conceived Bill, because it prioritises the hope of short-term tax gain over the far more important task of sustaining a system that encourages and rewards responsible pension saving. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have sought to examine it line by line to see what the Government’s policy will actually mean in practice, and what has become clear is deeply troubling.

This measure risks deterring pension savings. It will hit those on lower and middle incomes, including some earning under £30,000 a year. It will impose yet more compliance, payroll and administrative burdens on business, particularly on small businesses and charities that are already under considerable strain. It will particularly penalise those who are repaying student loans.

Against that background, I am proud of the scrutiny that the House has brought to the Bill. Your Lordships have approached it with care, expertise and determination to improve it where we can. As a result, with unusual speed, good order and good humour, the House agreed five amendments last week which seek to limit some of the Bill’s most damaging consequences.

First, our Conservative amendments ensure that basic rate taxpayers, those on the lowest incomes, are protected from the NICs charge. If the Government insist that this policy is directed at higher earners, not those on modest incomes trying to save for their retirement, this should be explicit in the Bill.

Secondly, we proposed an exemption for small and medium-sized enterprises and small charities. These organisations are the backbone of our economy and our communities, and they should not be burdened with yet more payroll, compliance and administrative costs as a result of this policy. We have all seen the impact on them of last year’s £25 billion hit.

Thirdly, we proposed that most of the regulations under the Bill should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Given the uncertainty that surrounds how these provisions will apply, it is only right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise those regulations properly.

Fourthly, my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley successfully secured an amendment to limit the impact of the Bill on those repaying student loans, who would be hardest hit by the measure.

Finally, the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised the cap to £5,000, helping to mitigate some of the worst impacts of the Bill on those least able to bear them.

In recognition of the seriousness of the issues raised by the Bill and the progress made here, I shall take a moment to thank a number of noble Lords for the diligence with which they have scrutinised it. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Fuller, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Mackinlay of Richborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. They have worked tirelessly, both with me and my noble friend Lord Altrincham, and their amendments have prompted important debates. I am also grateful to our Whips’ Office team, especially my adviser Oliver Bramley, for their unstinting and effective support, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for the constructive way in which she has engaged with us during the course of the Bill. Hers has been a powerful voice in holding the Government to account.

More broadly, I thank other noble Lords across the House, including the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford, Lord Londesborough and Lord Freyberg, for their thoughtful contributions in scrutinising the legislation. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to thank the Minister for the way in which he has engaged with the House during the passage of the Bill. I am particularly grateful to him and his officials for their response to the letter I sent following Committee. It addressed a number of the questions raised during our debates and was both timely and informative.

I hope that, as the Bill proceeds, the Government will reflect carefully on the points raised and show a willingness to move on the issues that have united so many across this House.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this was a very short Bill but, frankly, I do not know how it got through the House of Commons and came to this House without clarity on the fundamental issue of whether we were talking about a cap that was per employee or per employment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, for seeking the answers to that and making sure we were informed on Report. We were looking at two different Bills, not knowing which one we were working on, until we reached that point in the conversation, so I thank him.

I also join in saying that this was a collaborative effort, not in opposition to the Government but because we were of common mind across the Conservative Benches, my Benches and the Cross Benches—the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough, Lord de Clifford and Lord Freyberg, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned, all played a crucial role in this. I particularly congratulate my Benches on taking a vow of omertà not to speak on many occasions on the Bill so that we moved it rapidly through the House. I think the whole House was grateful that, on Thursday, when we finally came to vote, we were done in less than two hours rather than delaying everyone from departing on a Thursday. I thank my team very much for their discipline. I also thank Ulysse Abbate in our Whips’ office, who is new to this kind of work, but my goodness is he good at content and co-ordination.

This was a good example of people, having realised they are taking the same position, working together to make sure that it is effective. I very much hope that the Commons will appreciate the significance of the amendments passed to the Bill. Of all the Bills I have ever seen, this contains so many unintended consequences that, even if you believed in the fundamentals behind it, you would need to make substantial change for it to be in any way workable and not ending up targeting unintended groups, such as those on basic incomes. It would be devastating for people repaying student loans, which has to be fixed, and very difficult for SMEs. We chose different routes to try to make those changes and ended up with a very solid group of amendments. I thank the House for co-operating on this issue.

Small Businesses: VAT Threshold

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his campaigning work and raising this with me on a number of occasions. He knows that we are reviewing the online marketplace rules established under the previous Government. As part of that review, those consultations will take place. I will bring it to the attention of my colleague, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, to make sure that he consults with the businesses that the noble Lord mentioned.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, for many small businesses, the VAT threshold is only one part of a much wider cumulative burden, which includes rising national insurance contributions, business rates and minimum wage pressures, and the increasing complexity of employment regulation. That all hits enterprise and dampens the ambition and animal spirits that we need to get this country growing. Does the Minister therefore see a case for lifting this and other thresholds, and for exempting SMEs from some of the ever-growing burden of regulations that we are seeing? If so, where would he start?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

In a previous answer, I discussed the issues surrounding changing the threshold. The noble Baroness may know that the Windsor Framework imposes an upper limit of just over £90,000 on the threshold in Northern Ireland. The Windsor Framework is relevant by extension to the Government’s decisions in Great Britain too, so there are limitations to what we can do. She talked about the other decisions that the Government have taken, which she has consistently opposed—for example, raising the minimum wage. However, it is only because of these decisions that the Chancellor was able to tell Parliament, the day before yesterday, that living standards are now rising, having fallen under the previous Government, and that by the next election people will be £1,000 a year better off.

Duty Relief Exemption: Small Parcels

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he makes. As I said, the EU negotiations will cover an SPS agreement, which will have significant advantages for trade and the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the EU, and help boost our exports. Similarly, the negotiations on electricity and emissions trading will have beneficial effects for businesses trading with Northern Ireland and the EU. On his question about the Windsor Framework, goods will continue to benefit from the Windsor Framework facilitations, including manufactured goods which are not within the scope of new agreements that we are taking forward with the EU. On the recent report on the Windsor Framework from the Federation of Small Businesses, as the noble Lord knows, the Government recently accepted all the recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Murphy in his Independent Review of the Windsor Framework. This included recommendations that align with the points raised by a wide range of stakeholders, including those set out by the Federation of Small Businesses.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Returning to the issue of small parcels, we must ensure that all those concerned are aware of the rules governing trade with Northern Ireland, including all exporters into Northern Ireland, families sending parcels and, of course, Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, who will bear the cost, with the revenue going to the EU. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are on top of all this and will introduce the new sets of payments—the £3 duty or the £2 handling charge—alongside existing rules in a clear, unbureaucratic and timely manner? It is unclear for the individual just what they have to do.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Government are on top of it, perhaps slightly more so than the noble Baroness, given that her question was incorrect. I have already clearly said that these facilitations under the Windsor Framework are unaffected by the EU’s change to its duty relief exemption, and therefore there will be no need to pay duty.