UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is widely accepted that one of the problems that besets the UK economy is the low rate of capital investment in both the public and private sectors. It must be a good thing if the Government assess what will be needed in the way of capital investment and attract resources accordingly. I accept that, for many years, policies on all sides have been less than satisfactory, and I am not in a party-political mode today.

I am in favour of having a planned programme over a planned period, such as a five-year timeframe for capital spending. I welcome the new maintenance fund. My experience in business is that it is essential to provide for maintenance in respect of all capital investments. Having said all that, we are some way from having a coherent and detailed programme for future infrastructure, with the incentives that we need for success. Against that background, which is broadly supportive, I have a number of questions for the Minister.

There remain areas of uncertainty around governance, delivery, capacity and funding. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how and when these vital details will be revealed in future. It is really important to be clear, at a time when we are often reminded by the Government of the fiscal challenges they face, where the money is coming from.

It appears from the strategy that the Government hope that a substantial portion of this investment will come from off-balance-sheet public/private partnerships. Does the Minister recognise that this is an assumption from the Treasury rather than a hard pledge of cash? If sufficient private investment is not secured, does the noble Lord plan to use public money to fill the gap, or will the Treasury consider legislation to compel private funds to invest in government programmes—an approach that will deter investors in the UK?

Incorporating private finance into the new strategy is a welcome ambition, and I am glad to see the readiness to learn from the past. However, we must ask what changes the Treasury will make to how it engages in PPPs, given the failings around HS2, Metronet and Norfolk and Norwich hospital, to make sure we do not encounter these problems again.

Furthermore, the question that my honourable friend Richard Fuller raised in the other place was not properly answered. What proportion of the £725 billion is newly committed, as against previously announced money? As noble Lords will be aware, investment on this scale and across these timeframes must come with assurances of continuity and origin. I hope that the Minister can address these questions in his response.

The focus in the strategy is, rightly, centred on delivery. One important area in the strategy is housing. The Government have signalled their ambitious intention over the next five years to contribute 1.5 million new homes to the national stock. But the strategy actually funds 580,000 homes over 10 years through Homes England, an average of some 50,000 homes a year. Even on the lowest net migration forecast—350,000 a year—this is far below what is required each year just for migration-driven growth in housing demand. This is not the whole housing picture. However, our concern is that this offers so little net gain for current households waiting for a home. We will explore this further during the passage of the planning Bill, but I would welcome any clarification that the Minister can offer today.

Another area is aviation. The strategy and recent government announcements around aviation are welcome, both on infrastructure and on things such as aerospace redesign. However, as a recent debate in this place highlighted, limitations in the Government’s broader strategy around things such as the European geostationary navigation overlay service, EGNOS—known as the GPS on steroids—mean that these changes will have only a limited impact. Airports such as Exeter, Shoreham and Inverness previously relied on EGNOS to avoid costly infrastructure upgrades but will incur greater costs because they are no longer party to this service.

Does the Minister agree that we need to make sure that, alongside the new spending, we are pursuing non-fiscal policies that enable it to be effective? A key area is skills, which barely get a mention in the 10-year strategy. Yet I know from my time as chair of the Built Environment Committee and as a developer at Tesco that skills in construction, planning and environmental and community engagement matter a great deal. We have become increasingly short of the skills we need to build the hospitals, roads, railways, nuclear facilities, housing, prisons and water and flood defences that we need for a successful country and a successful strategy. I know from the Cabinet Office that, despite the very welcome advances in IT and AI, there is just not enough capacity in terms of skills or supply chains to build all we need. Is this something that concerns the Minister, and what plans does he have to solve the problem?

All of this speaks to the wider question of how we make sure that this money is spent intelligently to deliver value for money, and in a way that grows our economy and promotes productivity. A fundamental question is what our projected return on investment for this strategy actually is: £725 billion, albeit over a long period, is a great deal of money, so our net benefit must also be substantial in order to justify it. I hope the Minister can clear that point up for us.

A related question is: what sort of assessments went into choosing the areas to spend on? Transport spending is welcome, but is the Minister directing investment into the forms of transport that local communities benefit from the most, or does he risk further white elephants? How have the choices been made? Ensuring that we spend infrastructure money wisely, strategically and with an eye to the future is essential if we are to see the sorts of improvements in growth that the Chancellor and the whole country want. In doing so, we must target spending, combine it with wider enabling policy changes and ensure that we do not allow reforms to the Green Book and to local investment to lead to funding for white elephants.

We support the ambition behind this strategy. Long-term investment in infrastructure is a vital step if we are to address the real challenges facing our economy, our services and our communities, but this cannot be an exercise in headline figures or lofty announcements. If this plan is to succeed, the Government must show how the money will be secured, how it will be spent wisely and how it will deliver, for each project, tangible long-term benefits across the whole country—not just for now but for a changing economy and for future generations. How this policy fits in with yesterday’s industrial strategy will also be a vital consideration that we will examine carefully.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, like my colleagues in the other place I welcome this strategy, which if well managed can significantly improve the UK’s potential for growth. My colleague, the MP Sarah Olney, who responded to this Statement in the other place, focused very much on the absence of a serious discussion of skills in the paper. She did not get a very satisfactory answer. I hope that we will hear something more from the Minister today, because that is the Achilles heel of a great deal of this Statement. However, I am going to focus not on the specific projects or on the issues that were covered in the other place but on some critical aspects of the financing.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, indicated, the strategy proposes an updated version of public/private partnerships. I was recently privileged to chair a round table. Under Chatham House rules, I cannot tell you who was there by name, but there were leading developers, contractors and, basically, the money. To my amazement, and completely in contrast to most public statements, everyone started out by arguing against such a flawed model. Through an hour’s discussion, we identified some conditions under which a PPP could work. I will happily share that report, when it is prepared, with the Minister. The most significant condition was that the public sector has to field an educated buyer team with world-class negotiating skills, with world-class engineering, legal and financial knowledge in support. According to the people we talked to, such teams have not been in evidence.

The second most significant condition was that the projects must be specified in very fine detail, far more so than for a conventional financing and, especially if outcomes-based, allowing only for minimal variances. This condition, which many people will agree is essential for successful PPPs, seriously limits the eligible projects. I would like to hear from the Minister how much of a gap this might mean if these issues are pursued, as I hope they will be.

My second finance issue is specific to London, which will not receive government funding for much new infrastructure, even though it drives the national economy. If that is to be the case, London needs to be able to go directly to the financial markets at scale, to raise money against future value added, to build projects—and without the constraints associated with the current tax increment financing schemes, which are heavily laden with Treasury control. Once refined, this could extend to other parts of the country. I stress the urgency of dealing with this issue. London is the UK’s golden goose.

My last issue is to warn the Government again against abusing the regulated asset base as a mechanism to finance small modular nuclear reactors. In the Conservative era, the estimate that we were given on the Economic Affairs Committee for the then Government’s plans was an £80 increase to annual energy bills for ordinary people—£10 for each of eight SMRs. It was clearly an underestimate then and would be even more so now.

Does the Minister agree that the ordinary bill payer must not be treated as the stuffee—believe it or not, that is the common-parlance term—who must carry the risks and costs while others take both the immediate and future profits?

Business Rates Reform

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very happy to take that away and discuss it with my colleagues in MHCLG.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches broadly support BIDs and would not want to upset the good arrangements that exist. I welcome the Minister’s assurances on these issues, as far as they go, but could he undertake to come back to the House and inform us if developments suggest that their future is in doubt, given their importance right across the country?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, absolutely, although I do not quite see why their future would be in doubt; as I said, we have set out our intention to strengthen them. We will bring forward proposals to do exactly that. I do not see that the wider business rates reform agenda we have set out would in any way impact the important work that they do.

Spending Review 2025

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the spending review Statement, delivered by the Chancellor in the other place yesterday, made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that the Treasury has lost authority in determining how the Government spend taxpayers’ money. How else can the Treasury explain a spending review in which the Government will add another £140 billion to the national bill in extra borrowing, forecast over the period set out by the Chancellor? How else can the Treasury explain a cost burden so substantially increased that the Government are unable to rule out tax rises in the autumn? How else can the Treasury explain why it is subsidising tax reductions in Mauritius, but making decisions which will limit domestic economic growth?

Ministers are lauding a spending review which does not address the fundamental issues which we have raised in your Lordships’ House many times. Only a few weeks ago, we had an excellent debate on the crisis we face in light of the scale of our national debt. This situation has been made worse as a direct consequence of the spending review. Ensuring value for money in public expenditure—another issue we have raised time and again—has been virtually ignored.

However, I thank the Minister for the long overdue investment in nuclear at Sizewell C, on small modular reactors with Rolls-Royce and on the nuclear fusion prototype in Nottinghamshire. I just hope these will not take too long. They are essential to an energy balance, so we avoid the sort of problems we have seen in Spain.

Following on from our discussions last week on the transport package, I also welcome the extension of the £3 cap on bus fares, albeit only until 2027. London-based politicians do not understand how important buses are to so many of the less well-off in this country, especially in rural areas which are bearing the brunt of this Government’s policies in other ways. The introduction of a five-year planning cycle for capital is also positive.

However, I am very concerned at the way the Chancellor has hit police spending and defence to find yet more money for the NHS. Police chiefs are very anxious, and there is still no plan to reach the 3% we need on defence. The NHS is one of the major winners from the spending review, claiming over £29 billion per year in additional funding. But unlike our Conservative record, this new money from the Labour Government has come with no productivity conditions and no demands that services be improved or patient outcomes bettered. This is a major problem. In recent years, we have seen record levels of spending poured into the health service, yet productivity has not kept pace. According to the Office for National Statistics, NHS productivity still remains below pre-pandemic levels. We have an inverse ratio: the more money the Government give the NHS, the worse it functions.

What we are witnessing is a shortage not of funding but of effective reform. The NAO and other independent bodies have highlighted how much of this new funding has been absorbed by rising costs and staff pay.

I am grateful to the Government for allowing an extra 20 minutes for Back-Benchers to ask the many questions they will have on the detail of this Statement. To be honest, I would have preferred a full debate on this, as it sets the scene on expenditure choices for the rest of the Parliament.

Moreover, in the round, the Statement is a cause for concern. As the shadow Chancellor put it succinctly, “Spend now, tax later”. The fiscal rules have been loosened so the Government can borrow more and lay out a succession of goodies in a £190 billion spending spree.

There should have been much more focus on the nearly £100 billion of interest we are now paying on our national debt and on how to get that down—a debate on how we balance the nation’s books. Investment is separated out under the fiscal rules, but I am afraid it still has to be paid for. Is this investment being wisely invested?

To mention one angle, the promised new Green Book is not a new book but the findings of a review. It concludes—as I expected, given the changes that the Conservative Government made—that the current methodology is not biased towards certain regions. However, I was surprised to read that the existing Green Book puts too much emphasis on cost-benefit ratios and that a ratio of less than one might be fine. I am really worried about this as an encouragement to the approval of white elephants.

This, of course, is against a troubling economic background. Unemployment has hit a four-year high of 4.6%. A first estimate for May showed a 109,000 decline in jobs, which, if confirmed, would be the worst month since the height of the pandemic in April 2020. Since the Spring Statement, persistently higher gilt yields have blown a £5 billion hole in the Chancellor’s £9.9 billion buffer. Productivity was 0.2% lower in the first quarter of the year compared with the same period in 2024. The UK’s total rate of investment has been the worst in the G7, on average. On top of it all, the ONS today announced a 0.3% decline in GDP growth—partly, no doubt, because of the hikes in national insurance, which have hit businesses so hard. These are facts. The Chancellor should have taken corrective action in the spending review, but we can see that more taxes and higher council tax are coming.

Finally, I will come back to the Minister on a couple of points that he keeps making. He has alleged, often and aggressively, that when many new projects were announced by the Tories, no money was provided. That is, of course, because we rightly delayed the spending round until after the election. We, like the Government, would have allocated the money for what we had planned following a classic review.

This is linked to my other concern, about which I have been very patient with the Minister: that we had and have no plans for saving money to finance necessary spending. This is an inexactitude. Apart from the strong growth trajectory at the time of the election, undermined by Labour’s doom and gloom, we were on course to reduce the public sector. Instead, the civil service has risen in the past three months to over 516,000 full-time equivalent, the highest level since 2006—in contrast, according to Civil Service World, to the total of 384,000 FTE in September 2016, when I was serving in the Conservative Government.

This Government have chosen to give pay rises to the public sector costing £9 billion—and more, if you add on the future cost of their pensions—without the kind of link to productivity that any sensible managers insist on when a generous pay package is offered. Add to that the £30 billion for the Chagos Islands, which is funding reduced taxes in Mauritius not the UK, £8 billion on Great British Energy, and the abandonment of our ambitious plans for welfare reform and our attack on waste, of which, sadly, this week’s Blue Book is a pale imitation.

The truth is that the Government are busy creating their own black hole with all of this, and it has been topped up by the £1 billion reversal in the winter fuel allowance. We all understand why that was done, but it destroys confidence in the Chancellor’s determination not to raise taxes. My fear is that we will run into the autumn with anaemic growth, persistent inflation and a large new tax bill.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I recognise that the Chancellor faces real constraints, and this morning’s GDP figures for April underscore the problem. However, I am not going to use this opportunity to spend a lot of time talking about growth. It is such a big issue that we need some separate debate time set aside for it.

On these Benches, we are pleased with the significant allocations for the NHS and for housing in the spending review, though we are concerned that there are no targets for social housing, since we need at least 150,000 new social homes a year. I ask the Minister: given this additional money—which I know is only £3.9 million a year, but still, it is additional money—will we see that number of social homes come through annually? That really is the need that must be met.

However, nobody will be surprised that I was disappointed—almost to the point of devastation, quite frankly—to see adult social care overlooked, with no uplift until 2028, despite the reality that the situation is grim as we speak and that, without properly functioning adult social care, improvements to the NHS will be seriously undermined. If the Casey review is the hold-up, it should be and could be completed this year.

The Chancellor also suggested that she would back the fair pay agreement for adult social care workers sought by Care England. She absolutely should—care workers deserve every penny—but did I hear correctly that she will not fund it? The total package is £2 billion a year, and just the living wage and sick pay portion is £805 million a year. That kind of money puts in jeopardy not only many care providers but many local councils. If the Minister says that there was an uplift for councils, then not only does that rely on a 5% council tax increase in most councils but the additional money will be fully swallowed up by SEND, which is also in a dire situation. Will the Minister please explain what seems completely inexplicable: the overlooking of adult social care?

I also ask for clarification on defence spending. The Chancellor said she would raise it to 2.6% by 2027—which is the right direction—but is it correct that when she spoke, she treated spending on the secret services and on the Ukraine war as defence spending? If we speak in the terms that we have all been using up to now then the 2027 spend is, in my estimate, below 2.4%. I hope the Minister will tell me I have simply misunderstood. Will he help explain what exactly is going on with this defence spending? To me, all this confusion is underscoring the importance of cross-party talks, which my party has proposed, so that we collectively find a way to reach the necessary 3% well ahead of 2034. Boy, would I appreciate some clarification on what on earth is happening within that budget.

I am pleased to see new funds for the British Business Bank, whose greatest weakness, frankly, is its tiny size. However, to which bit of its activity is the additional money to be directed? I am particularly concerned about small business lending, and it could make a serious difference if much of the new funds are directed into the BBB’s Community ENABLE fund and its growth guarantee scheme. Who will make that call, is it dedicated, and does it have a target? Could the Minister please tell us more?

I could raise a lot of other questions, but I am anxious to hear properly from the Minister. I came away from the spending review, the Blue Book and the speech asking endless questions to which I could not find answers. I thought that I was going rather brain-dead. Then, I heard Paul Johnson of the IFS talk about the documents being so opaque that he was asking questions and could not find answers. If he cannot, we need help. Could we have clarity in the future, but in the meantime could the Minister please serve as our clarity?

Winter Fuel Payment

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He knows much more about the tax and benefits system than I do, I suspect, having spent many more years working on it than me. The answer to his question is that it is the latter: it is up to and including £35,000, so it will be at £35,001 where that happens. At that point, they will lose the winter fuel payment in its entirety.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am glad of the opportunity to wish the Minister a happy birthday from these Benches.

We welcome the decision by the Government partially to reverse their decision on the winter fuel allowance. That will ensure that our oldest and most vulnerable citizens are better protected through the dark and cold of the winter months. However, when he answered questions before, the Minister did not adequately answer how this £1.25 billion reversal will be funded. Can he tell us today whether it will result in further tax rises, in departmental spending cuts or in increases in borrowing, and, if not, where the money will come from?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her kind words. We are setting out these changes now to ensure that more pensioners are able to receive support this winter. That is important. As she knows, we have moved to just one fiscal event a year, so, as is now normal, these changes will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, which is the Budget in the autumn. This will ensure that final costings and funding decisions come alongside a full forecast from the OBR—something that the previous Government did not do—and we will ensure that the fiscal rules are met at all times.

Economic Growth

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She mentions the outflows. The outflows in 2024 were less than in any previous year over the last 14 years so, although they are not what we want to see, they are perhaps not as doom-laden as she might want to make out. The Chancellor set out extensive capital market reforms in her last Mansion House speech. She has another Mansion House speech due on 1 July, at which point we will also publish the financial services growth and competitiveness strategy. I hope that will help to answer some of the questions that the noble Baroness asks.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s tax hikes last year are believed—by the Bank of England, no less—to have reversed the frankly anaemic growth we have seen in the last couple of months, and we shall see what happens in the coming months. Since growth is the Government’s stated economic priority, which I agree with, it is unfortunate that today’s Statement by the Chancellor does so little to improve the position—for example, by boosting productivity across the economy. How do the Government plan to improve the situation, particularly in the coming months?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness says that growth was anaemic under this Government. As I said before, the UK was ranked seventh out of seven for projected 2025 growth when this Government took power but is now the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We all know what the Tory record on growth was; had the economy grown over their 14 years at the average of other OECD economies, it would have been £150 billion larger. The noble Baroness asked what was in the spending review to boost growth. I have already listed some of the measures: record investments in housing, R&D, transport and skills, more money to reduce inactivity, more money for childcare, access to finance and a record investment in nuclear. Every single penny of that her party opposes. She says she supports growth, but she does not support a single one of the measures to get it.

Social Care and Special Education Charities: Employer National Insurance Contributions

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. The answer is yes; I think I committed to doing so during the during the legislative process of that Bill. As I said then, the Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel for children with SEND. The Government have increased funding for the core schools budget by £2.3 billion, increasing per-pupil funding in real terms in 2025-26, and £1 billion of this funding will go towards supporting the special educational needs and disabilities system. The Chancellor will set out funding for schools as part of the spending review on Wednesday.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the fact is that these increases have devastated the charitable sector. For example, Noah’s Ark Hospice in north London said recently that the rise in national insurance represented

“basically a £100,000 tax on us that we hadn’t budgeted for”.

Yet the need for these services has never been greater, as the Minister has just acknowledged. Will he assure the House that the Government will not increase national insurance contributions again and that his review will look sectorally in detail at the effect on charities, hospices and social care before the next Budget?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

On the first half of the noble Baroness’s question, as she knows, as part of the changes to national insurance, the Government recognised the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities, which is why we more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that more than half of businesses with national insurance liabilities will either gain or see no change this year. The Government provide a great deal of additional support to charities via our tax regime, which is among the most generous anywhere in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024.

Regional Growth

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Statement given in the other place yesterday made many references to the benefits of growth, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury could hardly contain his excitement when he said that increases in regional productivity could grow the economy significantly. We on this side of the House would of course welcome the prospect of economic growth. However, although the Statement mentioned “growth” nine times, there was little to no detail on how these proposals would in fact boost our economy.

One vital question is whether this level of investment—if it is in fact new money—will require an increase in taxation, given that national debt is already at around 100% of GDP. As we know from the country’s experiences with inheritance tax and the NICs hike, tax rises are bad for growth and bad for our economy. I hope that the Minister can provide the House with some clarity on this question. Can he confirm to the House what the net figure is for the projected cumulative impact of this policy on British economic growth by the end of the Parliament? Can he assure the House that this policy will not be met through any new or increased taxes?

This Statement also gives me a sense of déjà vu, because the measures announced are incredibly similar in scale and form to the funding announcements made by the previous Government under the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements in 2023. In 2023, we promised £2.64 billion for the West Midlands, and the Government have announced £2.4 billion for the West Midlands. We promised £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire; now, the Government have announced £2.1 billion. We promised £2.5 billion for Greater Manchester; they have announced £2.5 billion. Indeed, much of this investment touted by the Government appears to have been recycled—money already announced in different forms under previous schemes and now repackaged. This needs careful examination. Perhaps the Minister could help us here with an honest assessment.

The Government quote the Green Book, which they are revising to give more opportunity for projects outside the south-east—so a change in the way value for money is approached. Given that this has already been briefed to the media, what are the key features here and have the projects announced yesterday been assessed on the old or the new basis? How will the rules be honed to avoid Whitehall-inspired or ministerially-inspired white elephants?

I had the honour of chairing the Built Environment Committee, with many from across the House, and leading its work in 2022 on Public Transport in Towns and Cities. We found that nearly two-thirds of journeys on public transport were by bus. What do the Government’s plans do for bus funding? I am less interested today in the rapid bus routes planned for Liverpool than in basic bus services that so many people take to work, especially when they live outside our cities and commute. The Government have increased the maximum £2 fare that we introduced and have not guaranteed its long-term future.

The committee also found that light rail schemes—basically, trams—are very expensive but that very light rail systems such as that in Coventry, and bus rapid transit schemes, had more potential and needed to be assessed and compared. What have the Government concluded about the balance here, and how is that reflected in yesterday’s package?

We support infrastructure investment when it is targeted, timely and impactful. But what we heard from the Chancellor and Chief Secretary yesterday was less of a plan and more of a press release. The funding, spread over nearly a decade, will not begin in earnest until 2027. That is two years from now before the money leaves the Treasury. For communities in the Midlands and the north, this will sound like delay dressed up as action.

Can the Minister confirm when we will see the effect of this policy reflected in regional and national growth and productivity rates? Can he assure the House that businesses in the areas identified will see a tangible improvement in their day-to-day operations as a result of these spending decisions? After all, it is business, not government, that is more productive and the main driver of growth.

The noble Lord and I agree on the importance of productivity growth. However, to achieve the £86 billion productivity improvement in cities cited in the Statement requires much more than this largely welcome transport investment. We need a revolution in skills, innovation, digitalisation and public sector efficiency, and to solve the problem of uncompetitive electricity prices crippling our industries, especially in the very regions we are talking about today.

Finally, I must raise a note of caution on the fiscal front. At a time of considerable pressure on the public finances, we must be clear-eyed about priorities. A commitment of this scale, without clear delivery mechanisms or clarity on the projected economic returns, risks becoming a drain rather than a driver. Transport investment must support productivity, growth, and value for money. It must not become an uncosted political gesture, reliant on anti-growth decisions such as tax hikes. It is incumbent on the Government to be responsible in the steps that they take, so I look forward to the noble Lord’s answers today and to next week’s spending review, when we will return to some of these issues.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

The Liberal Democrat Benches fully support measures to grow our economy across every nation and every region. We therefore welcome this Statement detailing planned investment in public transport and infrastructure. It is good to see not just plans but the money set aside for some city regions, giving long-term transport financial settlements. Frankly, that is the only sensible way to ensure investment in transport infrastructure, rather than the constant stop-start begging-bowl approach we saw with the previous Government, which benefits no one and delivers nothing. For too long, communities have heard promises only, to be left with phantom transport networks, so investment in transport infrastructure is vital if we are to grow our economy and create access to jobs across the country.

In particular, we are very pleased to see the Metrolink to Stockport in this announcement, which is testimony to the hard work of the local Liberal Democrats, who have been campaigning and working on this issue for many years—indeed, long before the mayor and the combined authority were created. However, we have a number of questions. It seems that areas without mayors are being left behind or ignored. Where is the plan and money for rural areas? There are parts of the south-west, for example, which would benefit hugely from transport infrastructure investment, yet this area has been ignored in this Statement. It feels as though Bristol is as far west as the Government can see.

Whether it is Cumbria, Shropshire, Norfolk, Devon or Cornwall, there is nothing in this Statement for them, so what plans do the Government have for a rural growth strategy? What funding is planned for our railways as they come under public ownership? There is a desperate need for major investment across the network to enable more frequent trains to serve our communities. Will there be a railway investment plan? Will the Mayor of London and Transport for London be allocated further funding to maintain and grow the capital’s transport system, creating jobs across the country?

The cost of fares is a real barrier to many people. What plans are there to reduce fares—in particular, to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap—and to reform rail fares to make them affordable for passengers? Alongside the investment in infrastructure, there is the challenge of the skills and workforce issues. What plans do the Government have to ensure that we have the skilled and trained workforce to build this transport infrastructure, including fixing the apprenticeship levy? This is a welcome first step, but key questions need to be answered to ensure that every area can grow and prosper.

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

I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Pidgeon, for their questions, and I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to her place and look forward to speaking with her in many more of these debates.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked a number of questions. She started by asking about growth. I noticed that she did not mention that, in this quarter, the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. I noticed that she did not mention that our growth forecasts have just been upgraded by the IMF. I noticed that she did not mention that, in many business surveys, business confidence is now at its highest level for many years. I hope that, when she talks about growth, she will always give a rounded picture of where we are on growth.

She asked whether these measures will contribute to regional growth, and yes, of course they will: that is the whole point of them. For too long, we have relied on just one part of the country to generate economic growth. We need to make sure that more parts of our country are contributing to growth and more people throughout our country are feeling the benefits of that growth. That is absolutely why we are doing what we are. It is why we started with connectivity: because we know that connecting city regions is incredibly important, enabling more people to travel to work, connecting labour markets and connecting businesses to more places so that they can sell more goods to more people. That is absolutely central to what we set out yesterday. The answer to the question, “Will this contribute to growth?” is: yes it absolutely will. We saw in the Spring Statement the OBR, for example, scoring for the first time some of our growth measures, and of course we hope that it will continue to score our growth measures going forward.

She asked: is this new money? Absolutely, yes—yesterday, we announced £15 billion of new money. It is the biggest ever investment by any British Government in our regional transport network. As a result of the fiscal rules and the difficult decisions that we have taken, we are in the spending review increasing the overall amount of spending by £300 billion: £190 billion on day-to-day spending and an increase of £113 billion on capital spending. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, welcomed—slightly half-heartedly—what we announced yesterday. It is notable that she welcomed the additional spending, but she has at no point welcomed any of the difficult measures we have taken to raise that money so that we can spend it on the things that she is now welcoming. I think that her shadow Chancellor is today making a speech where he is seeking to distance himself from the Liz Truss approach from the previous Parliament. Yet it seems to me that the party opposite is repeating exactly the same mistakes of the Liz Truss mini-Budget of spending money that it does not have. I think that is a huge risk going forward. As I say, she has welcomed this spending, but she has opposed every single measure we have taken to raise the money to fund it. She asks: will this policy require any additional taxes? No, because we have already raised the taxes in the last Budget—£40 billion—to enable us to spend this money for the rest of this Parliament. So yes, these measures will be met within the envelope that was set at the last Budget.

The noble Baroness said that these are the same measures as the previous Government announced. She kept using the phrase, “We promised”. I think that is a really important phrase because, yes, the previous Government did promise many things, but they did not put a single penny of funding behind any of the promises made. The big difference between what we are doing now, what the Chancellor announced yesterday, and what the previous Government announced, was that they made lots and lots of promises that they never funded—not with a single penny of funding. She will have heard me refer to the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is exactly why that black hole occurred. What we announced yesterday was real funding for real measures going forward. That is the big, fundamental difference. She asked for an honest assessment, and I think I would call for some honesty from her too that the previous Government did not fund any of those promises.

She asked about the Green Book. We have set out that the Green Book was used by previous Governments against regional authorities and local mayors as a reason not to invest outside London and the south-east. We have changed that methodology. We will set out in the spending review next week the full details of that review, and I look forward to discussing the full details of that with her.

She said that funding would not be seen for two years from now. Of course, there was no funding seen under the last Government at all, so of course we have to start somewhere and we have to get the money out of the door—she is absolutely right. But spades will be in the ground in this Parliament, and we absolutely confirm that.

She asked: will we see improvements for business? Yes, it is absolutely the purpose of this announcement to connect businesses to more areas. It is why local transport networks are so vital and why we have started where we are. She talked about the fiscal front, and I completely agree with her. Of course there are increasing pressures, but that is why I say to her that we must not make promises that we cannot afford. The previous Government did exactly that; we will not make that mistake.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her welcome for the long-term nature of these announcements, and it is obviously great that national government is working with local government and local government leaders to deliver on these promises. She called it a welcome first step, and I would agree exactly with that sentiment. We were very clear about what we were and were not announcing yesterday. Yesterday, we were announcing the connectivity of city regions, so of course this focused on certain city regions. Next week, we will set out in the spending review the entire regional plan for growth: for the rest of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is what we will do, but yesterday we were talking purely about the connectivity of city regions, and we were putting the transport connectivity first, because we know that that is the essential underpinning for so much else in our growth strategy.

She touched on a number of other things that are important to growth. She talked about skills, for example. I completely agree with her when it comes to skills. We will be setting out in the spending review, and then in the industrial strategy in the weeks following the spending review, the measures that we are taking. She talked about having the workforce to build this transport infrastructure. Absolutely: I completely agree with her on that point. She asked about funding for railways, the rest of the country and regional plans, and about the Mayor of London, et cetera. All those questions will be addressed in the spending review next week, and I look forward to discussing that with her and other noble Lords next week.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Will that include buses?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It will include buses too, of course.

Denial of Banking Services: UK Defence Sector

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree very much with what the noble and gallant Lord says. The Government have made it very clear that we consider defence an ethical investment. We do not see a conflict between sustainable investment and investment in our world-leading defence sector.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, defence is a vital requirement of our nation; I think we are all agreed on that. There have been many bad examples, which is why we are debating this today. Does the Minister agree that it is preposterous, unpatriotic and concerning that investment in our defence sector—for example, by certain pension funds or others prioritising ethical investment—should be actively discouraged by those purporting to favour a sustainable approach to investment? This needs to change.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Baroness. As I said previously, the Government have made it very clear that we consider defence an ethical investment. We do not see a conflict between sustainable investment and investment in our world-leading defence sector, and at a time of increasing geopolitical instability, supporting the defence sector has never been more critical.

Mansion House Accord

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is disappointing that UK pension funds now invest only around 4.4% in British assets, in contrast to between 12% and 18% in Canada. That is no longer good value, given the scale of tax reliefs in the UK. Equally, a mandatory backstop, as apparently favoured by the Chancellor, is hard to reconcile with pension trustees’ fiduciary duties to put our millions of savers first. Does the Minister agree that experience in Australia and Canada should encourage us to move forward sensibly? Does he also acknowledge that the task of balancing important domestic investment with the need to invest in the best interests of our savers is actually best left to the providers themselves, and not directed by the Government?

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her questions. I am sorry that she started her remarks with the word “disappointing”, because this is a really important initiative by the industry and one that the Government very much welcome. Of course, it builds on the work that the previous Conservative Government did, which the previous Conservative Chancellor began, so I hope that there is cross-party support for these steps. This is very important to our growth mission, by increasing investment in infrastructure, and it supports better outcomes for savers. As the noble Baroness will know, this is an industry-led, voluntary accord. Pension funds are choosing to do this, because evidence shows that high-growth assets can boost returns over time. We are confident that schemes are moving in the right direction, and this accord shows what government and business can achieve together, when working in partnership. The pension schemes Bill will contain more details about how these developments will be monitored to make sure that change is delivered.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I have to say that I appreciate the explanation that we have just had from the Minister, but I and others remain disturbed by the Government’s decision not to accept the amendment, which was not just rational but well crafted, introduced by your Lordships in this House. The underlying Bill was initially presented to the House as providing a mechanism to save significant small banks from failing by recapitalising them from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, rather than having to turn to the taxpayer. Regulated banks, as this House will know, are then required to replenish the FSCS when it is depleted for any reason, but, because the thrust of the language was around small banks—that was the intent, and that was the discussion that is in all the notes—this House very much agreed to it, with just a few probing points engaged with.

Thank goodness that we have a lot of very good brains in this House. The combination of my noble friends Lady Bowles and Lord Fox and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Vere, realised that there was a significant loophole in the language. We did not realise in the beginning that any of this could be applied to the larger banks; that became clear only as those pursuing the legislation became more aware of the implications of its content. Now we have a Bill that permits the regulator to use the FSCS as its mechanism to rescue large banks. Let us be frank: it completely changes the whole profile of both risks and consequences. The amendment would have effectively closed that loophole.

The larger banks, as the Minister has said, already have their own dedicated process to recapitalise in case of failure, a process that was introduced after the 2008 crisis. The Bank of England requires each large bank to hold a tranche of MREL—in plain English, bail-in bonds—which can be converted to capital by the regulator in case of failure, with the consequence that the bank is thereby rescued. We need to understand why that is not considered by the Government to be an adequate system. The Minister has just said—if I understood him—that the regulators will always require that bail-in bonds are used first, and the FSCS is a resource of last resort. But that is not in the legislation. The legislation allows the regulator to turn first to the FSCS and ignore bail-in altogether. He will be very conscious that the Swiss regulator, with the failure of Credit Suisse, completely ignored the bail-in capability and chose other routes to manage the rescue of Credit Suisse.

Those who hold bail-in bonds—the investors who buy them—are extremely well remunerated for carrying the risk associated with a bail-in bond. I am trying to work out why they can now look at this legislation and begin to assume that they will have the benefits of receiving a risk premium for holding those bonds but never actually find that those bonds are forced into use in case of a failure. How can we rely on just a code to continue to determine that bail-in will be the first resort and not a later resort or no resort at all? Are the Government basically saying that there are now many circumstances they have identified in which bail-in is neither usable nor adequate? I refer to the Swiss example. What are the consequences for financial sustainability if we are saying that bail-in is a slightly busted system? Have there been blandishments from the various investors who have purchased bail-in bonds, trying to pressure the Government into creating an alternate route? What are the consequences for our small- and medium-sized banks if the FSCS is depleted by big bank failure?

The Minister says that the regulators will not ask for an unaffordable contribution from the various banks to replenish the FSCS, but it is our mechanism that ensures small depositors’ accounts. Who is going to do the replenishment if the number is too great to ask the banks to commit to it? I am quite troubled by this change in responsibility for where risk lies that is embedded in the Bill. If the Minister is so sure that the items in the code should be giving us reassurance, why have they not been introduced in this Bill as part of the legislation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important Bill, which provides the Bank of England with extra flexibility to manage bank failures, particularly those of smaller banks, in a way that strengthens protections for taxpayers. It reflects proposals by the last Government in the light of experience with the demise of Silicon Valley Bank. As such, it had cross-party support and, starting in the Lords, was a good example of expert scrutiny across the House.

Special thanks go to my noble friend and predecessor Lady Vere, my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Penn, the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Eatwell, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bowles, officials on all sides—of course, not forgetting the Whips—and, above all, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. I thank him both for the government amendments, notably that which was made to Clause 3 on the involvement of the Treasury Committee and the House of Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee, and for the timely publication of the draft code of practice, which helped us to overcome some substantial difficulties, as he has already mentioned.

Banking and financial services are very important to the success of the British economy. In 2022, the UK financial system held assets of around £27 trillion and in 2023 the financial insurance services sector contributed £208 billion to the UK economy. Legal regimes which govern how our banking and financial sectors operate need to promote growth and competitiveness and be easy to navigate and use. They must also balance ambition with prudence—an understandable driver of the Bill.

Noble Lords will recall the amendment we successfully added that was championed by my noble friend Lady Vere. This sought to prohibit the use of the funds from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to recapitalise large financial institutions, defined as those which had reached an end-state MREL. The object was to reflect in law the Government’s stated objective of using the resolution framework in the event of a smaller bank requiring intervention, thus preventing the associated risk of contagion. The truth is that the Banking Act 2009 provides a robust framework for dealing with the large banks that have achieved end-state MREL status. They and the Bank of England should not be taking comfort from the fact that they could fall back on an ex-post levy of the banking sector through the FSCS in times of trouble. Resources should be focused on the SME banking sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, reiterated.

In view of this, I am joined by noble Lords across the House in expressing disappointment that Members in the other place voted to remove this amendment from the Bill. We are confident that it would have improved the Bill in meeting its objective and helped to embed the balance I spoke of. However, we must accept that Treasury Ministers, with their battalions of support in the other place, wish to maintain flexibility; for example, as the Minister explained, to deal with a large, unexpected redress claim leaving the taxpayer exposed, although this is very much a backstop arrangement, with a £1.5 billion cap, as the Minister confirmed. So I do not propose to test the opinion of the House again.

It was also disappointing to see the rejection of other prudent proposals put forward by colleagues in the other place in good faith. Regardless, I hope the Government will consider these proposals seriously as we try together to create a system which is balanced and simple and promotes growth—an objective that the Minister and I share.

We support the thrust of the Bill, which continues the work that we did in government to support our banking sector, protect consumers and safeguard the public finances. However, there are still outstanding questions which I hope the Government can address today or in writing. They are even more important now that the Vere amendment has been rejected.

The Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority have proposed an FSCS operating budget for 2025-26 of £109 million. This budget covers the FSCS’s administrative expenses and does not represent the total funds available for compensation payouts. Over the three financial years from 2021 to 2024, the FSCS paid just £10 million in compensation relating to deposit claims, due primarily to the defaults of 11 credit unions and one small bank. Will the Minister kindly outline the steps the Government are taking to minimise the operating costs of the FSCS?

The FSCS is a quango, which is overseen by a quango, in conjunction with another quango. The fact that it uses an industry funding model does not change this. The money in its operating budget is money that is not being utilised in the banking sector, which employs millions of people and contributes billions to our economy and to growth. Does the Minister agree that the FSCS should focus on efficiency and on keeping as much money as possible available to banks for their use and not tied up unnecessarily in its operating budget and that, like other regulators, it should have regard to the Government’s overall objective of growth?

I end by saying that this is a broadly sensible proposal designed to safeguard public finances, ensure the security of our financial sector and limit public risk. We will support the Government in their ambition to achieve the objectives of the Bill, but I hope the Minister will seriously consider the points that have been raised today and will take the opportunity to clear up some of the questions that have been asked.