Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

I predict that, when we in Parliament consider the next financial services Bill—as we do every few years—we will return to accountability. We may well not get a step change in how we hold the regulators to account until there has been a major regulatory failure that the regulators do not manage to talk themselves out of. Then, hindsight on accountability will be a wonderful thing.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to and shareholder in Banco Santander. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I will speak very briefly on Amendment 68. My noble friend Lady Noakes just covered the waterfront incredibly well, in her exemplary manner, and made all the key points.

I will briefly say this. The first leg of this amendment, about the FCA’s office for regulatory evaluation, is an extremely measured and well-constructed proposal from my noble friend, but I propose to set up something different: an office for financial regulatory accountability that stands outside all the regulators and looks at financial services regulation, consultations and proposals in the round. It would therefore provide an independent source for Parliament and everyone else to look at the impact of those actions, so that they could be analysed and, critically, the regulators and supervisors could be held to account.

Many said to me that they felt this office would become a back-seat driver for the regulators and supervisors, and that we would, essentially, have someone second-guessing their actions, potentially undermining the operational independence that they have been given. This proposal from my noble friend overcomes that very well. While I am very pleased that the Minister is making constructive noises about the need for greater accountability and scrutiny, I am somewhat disappointed that it seems that this proposal, which builds, as far as I can see, on the work of the cost-benefit panels within the FCA, would help Parliament hold the FCA to account with much greater independent analysis. When he sums up, I would like the Minister to give us a bit more argument about why this is a bad idea.

I turn to the second leg of this amendment, which relates to the Bank of England and the office for regulatory evaluation. It is rather sad that, at 10.05 pm, about 15 of us are debating one of the most important institutions in this country, how it is held to account and the means by which it evaluates its performance. This speaks volumes about how we in Parliament potentially need to up our game in how we hold the Bank of England to account. That criticism may be aimed at all of us rather than at the Government.

The independent evaluation office within the Bank performs, and has performed, a critical role. When you look back to see what various chairmen of the court have said about it, many of them have gone on the record over the past decade praising its work and saying that it provides valuable input to the court by analysing what the Bank is up to and making sure that the Bank is internally held to account. So when the Financial Times reported several weeks ago that the Bank of England was dismantling the IEO, I have to say that alarm bells started to ring.

When the Minister sums up, perhaps he can answer some simple questions. I realise that he is speaking on behalf of the Treasury, not the Bank of England, but what I am trying to understand is, first, what is the problem that this decision to dismantle the IEO is trying to solve? What is it that the Bank is trying to achieve? What is the progress it is trying to make by abolishing and dismantling the IEO, in particular given that so many chairmen of the court have spoken in favour of it?

The second point builds on what my noble friend Lady Noakes said. When the IEO is abolished and these external independent analysts are brought in, how many reviews does the court expect to commission? As my noble friend pointed out, the IEO has published only a relatively small handful of reviews. Is it going to be more or less? Next, if the court chooses the subjects, how will we ensure that the uncomfortable issues that the Bank needs to confront will be confronted? Finally, does the Minister think that this move will increase the accountability and scrutiny of the Bank? That is my litmus test: will it make sure that the Bank’s performance is held even more to account?

There are questions to answer here. I very much welcome what the Minister said about his wish to increase accountability and scrutiny. I think that we are disagreeing here on the means by which to do so, so I look forward to his answers.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Noakes, to the Financial Services Regulation Committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and to my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley for their persistent pursuit of a very simple but important principle. As regulators gain more power and their remit expands, so too should the scope and effectiveness of the oversight to which they are subject.

My noble friend Lady Noakes powerfully articulated the concern that the FSMA model has been stretched too far and that even our expert parliamentary committees are struggling with the volume and complexity of oversight. We need stronger, not weaker, democratic accountability, which is why we saw value in the office of regulatory evaluation and/or my noble friend Lord Bridges’s original model tabled in Committee. We also share his concern about the dismantling of the Bank of England’s IEO.

This is an area where the Opposition will continue to develop our thinking for future legislation and would welcome engagement. We are not comfortable with a system whose reaction seems to be to delegate every new or persistent problem to our regulators. We are very pleased that my noble friend Lady Noakes will continue to work with the Treasury and the regulators on improving parliamentary oversight through the relevant committees, and we look forward to working with her and others across the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. What she has proposed represents a practical compromise that would allow us to move on. However, a positive response to Amendment 93 on first use of the new powers would also be important.

One practical way in which the accountability gap could be narrowed a little—and, indeed, trust in the FCA improved—would be to strengthen the remit of the cost-benefit analysis panels, which already sit within the regulators. Their remit could extend beyond rule changes to include guidance and enforcement activity. They could be given the ability to request an assessment of changes that the regulator has judged to be immaterial. This would strengthen internal challenge, improve confidence in the regulatory process and provide Parliament with more useful and more independent information. I have not brought back yet another amendment on this proposal, but I hope the Minister can commit to looking seriously at it as a follow-up to this useful debate.

I welcome the Government’s amendment on competitiveness and growth. I am only sorry that the name of the Financial Services Regulation Committee does not seem to have made its way into the statute.

Middle East: Economic Update

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Of course there are consequences; I agree completely with the noble Lord. He talks of a hypothetical of the defence investment plan not happening. It will happen and, as I have said already, it will be published in due course.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, in response to my noble friend Lord Clarke’s question, the Minister spoke of the cuts that the Government are planning to make to the welfare budget. Is he saying that those cuts are sufficient and that that is all the Government will be doing?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not have a crystal ball and I cannot look ahead to everything the Government will be doing, but I can tell the noble Lord, as I said to his noble friend, that we are reforming the welfare system.

Middle East: Economic Update

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his question and his consistent support for the action we are taking on renewables. He is absolutely right that it is important that the Government enable the country to take control of its own energy supply. As he says and I have said, we are continuing to invest in renewables by lifting the ban on onshore wind and running the biggest ever floating offshore wind auction last year.

On household energy bills, I have said that contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality. I agree with what he says about data, and of course that work is ongoing. It is very important that we keep costs down for everyone, while providing support for those who need it most and acting within our fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I am not going to test the noble Lord’s legendary diplomatic skills in answering this question but, last year, the Prime Minister said that “security and defence” were

“not one priority amongst many others but the central organising principle of government. The first thought in the morning, the last at night, the pillar on which everything else stands or falls”.

In light of the Statement that the Chancellor delivered the other day, could the noble Lord confirm that that statement from the Prime Minister is still the case and that defence is the overall organising principle of government? Can he therefore explain when we will see a rapid rise in defence spending and why current forecasts show a welfare spending increase way above that of defence?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He knows that the previous Government increased welfare spending by £88 billion in their last five years, which is quite a legacy for us to have inherited. He also knows that we are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. As I have said already, the Chancellor has approved access for the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the Middle East.

He asked me how we will increase defence spending. We are investing £270 billion over this Parliament, after years of our Armed Forces being neglected under the previous Government. We will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP from 2027 and we are increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, when fiscal and economic conditions allow. We are not going to put an arbitrary date on that percentage until we know exactly where the money is coming from.

I should also say that, this week, the Chancellor announced a new defence procurement mechanism. A core group of NATO allies—Finland, the Netherlands, the UK and other partners—have announced that they are exploring setting up a new mechanism for financing by 2027. The aim is to aggregate demand to drive joint procurement, accelerate defence investment and increase the availability of critical capabilities.

Reducing Government Spending

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Debt Management Office’s operations continue to see strong demand, with efficient pricing. As I have said already, this year the Government will reduce the deficit by £20 billion since last year from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP, and global financial market volatility means it is more important than ever to have a robust fiscal framework, with fiscal rules that provide stability, ensure our public services are sustainably funded and reduce the burden on future generations.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, in January the Chancellor said that the UK is

“in a very strong position”

to withstand new shocks to the public finances without further tax rises. Can the Minister repeat that assurance?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Of course, I agree with everything the Chancellor says. Since coming to office, this Government have implemented an economic plan to bring stability to the public finances and to strengthen Britain’s economy for the long term. The forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, published last month, showed that our plan is working and that we enter this period of global uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong. We have cut inflation, which is standing now at 3%, a lower base than at the outset of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have prioritised growth to drive up living standards and have stabilised the public finances, having already reduced the deficit by £20 billion this year, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP.

Business Rates

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of consumer confidence—and six interest rate cuts since the election is very important to bolstering that consumer confidence. It is the fastest pace of interest rate cuts for 17 years, and the action we took in the Budget to further cut inflation and bear down on borrowing will support the Bank of England in the work it is doing to reduce interest rates. I also agree with what the noble Lord says about out-of-town online giants, and that is why we are reforming the business rates system. As I said, we are introducing permanently lower tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and we are funding that with higher rates on the most valuable properties, including the warehouses used by online giants. But I absolutely understand what the noble Lord is saying, and I am more than happy to look at that as part of the work to develop the high street strategy.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord shed some light on when the review of hotels is likely to report and conclude, and when hoteliers might be able to see some relief on their business rates?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Hotels will continue to benefit from the support for business rates announced at the Budget. As I have already said, this latest package needs to be seen in the round with the £4.3 billion that we announced at the time of the Budget, including the transitional relief scheme, which will cap increases for those seeing the largest increases. The noble Lord is right, though, to mention hotels, and we recognise that hotels have expressed concerns about how they are valued for business rates. Hotel valuations are undertaken in a different way from some other sectors, so we will review the way hotels are valued as part of our wider valuation review. The methodology used is well established, but as with pubs, specific concerns have been raised with us, and it is right to review this to ensure it accurately reflects the rental value for these sectors. Any potential changes to business rates as a result of that review will be considered at the Budget in the usual way.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No, I do not agree with the points the noble Baroness makes. She says this will raise next to nothing; it will still raise about £300 million for our public services. I do not know whether she thinks that is next to nothing—I do not—and I do not know where she would get that money from if she wishes to cut this. There is also an important core principle that we have maintained: that more valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief. There is, I believe, a need to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief; I think she is saying that she does not agree with that. However, the status quo is not sustainable, because a very small number of claimants currently benefit from a very significant amount of agricultural property relief and business property relief. The top 7%, the largest 117 claims in 2021-22, accounted for 40% of the total Exchequer cost of agricultural property relief, and the top 4% of claims, the largest 158 claims, accounted for 53% of the Exchequer cost of business property relief. We are now getting the balance right between protecting those farms and those businesses, supporting the public finances and supporting our public services.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

Can the noble Lord clarify how much this change will cost and how it affects the forecasts in the Budget’s EFO?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The OBR will cost it precisely in the next EFO. I believe it will now raise approximately £300 million, but the OBR will confirm that in the next round of forecasts.

Autumn Budget 2025

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. Let me start by saying that I have some sympathy for the Chancellor. Her approval ratings are now so low that she is giving even Kwasi Kwarteng a run for his money. Just 12% give her a favourable rating, and from listening to the Benches opposite, the entire 12% seem to be here today, so I congratulate the Government Chief Whip on herding them all together.

I actually agree with some of what those on the opposite Benches have been saying. The Conservatives left office with taxes, spending and debt far too high, and growth anaemic. Worse than that, we and the party opposite all colluded in a conspiracy of silence about what that meant for the nation’s finances. We did not dare level with people before the last election that spending was too high and that either taxes would need to rise, or the state would have to do less. That is the background to the tragedy unfolding before us.

With their enormous majority, I, like many others, had high hopes that this Government, a Labour Government, might be bold in the spirit of other Labour Governments and reform the state. Where are those hopes now? They are dashed. This Government are a ship adrift in a storm, its captain struggling to stop it from crashing on to the rocks and trying to control his mutinous crew, his Ministers clinging to their lines to take as if they were lifejackets.

Like others on this side, I have been in similar situations at that Dispatch Box, so I have some sympathy with the Minister. As I know how demanding these moments are, I do not want to unnecessarily make life more miserable for him. However, I expect him to clarify how this Budget delivers on the ambitions that he and his entire Government have made.

Let me pull together a number of points made by my noble friends. First, on the mission to kick-start growth, is it correct that the Budget contains no measure that materially improves the OBR’s growth forecast, that the rate of productivity growth has been downgraded, and that growth in real household disposable income will fall sharply this year and next?

Secondly, on Labour’s promise not to raise taxes on working people, is it correct that the Budget’s £26 billion tax rise will push 1.7 million more people into higher tax bands, pushing the tax take to a record level?

Thirdly, the Chancellor pledged her Budget would ease the cost of living. Is it correct that, despite the measures the Minister mentioned were contained in the Budget, the OBR now expects inflation to stay higher for longer?

Fourthly, the Chancellor pledged her Budget would “reduce the national debt”. Is it correct that by the end of the Parliament, debt will be almost two percentage points of GDP higher than in 2024-25, with debt interest higher than today?

Finally, the Prime Minister has stated, as others have noted, that the welfare bill is “unsustainable … indefensible and … unfair”. Is it correct that annual welfare spending will be £56 billion higher at the end of the Parliament than today, that by 2028-29, spending on health and disability benefits alone will be double defence spending, and that without further reform, changes will reward dependency and not work? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

I will end with this. The Government were given an enormous majority to change this country for the better. Millions of people put their hopes in the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, trusting them to keep their word and meet the economic, social and security challenges Britain faces with credible plans. Instead, with this Budget, the Government have not merely broken their word but have dragged us all deeper into the economic mire. That is a tragedy for us all.

Forthcoming Fiscal Changes

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, and as I think I have made clear, I am not going to comment on speculation ahead of the Budget, neither am I going to comment—I never do—on market movements.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister just said that the Budget tomorrow will be focused on protecting our NHS, reducing our national debt and improving the cost of living, which the Chancellor has said in one of her many scene-setters are the priorities of the British people. However, back in May, the Prime Minister said that the Government

“see security and defence not as one priority amongst many others but as the central organising principle of government – the first thought in the morning – the last at night. The pillar on which everything else stands or falls”.

Therefore, why is not defence one of the priorities, or has No. 11 not yet got the memo?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I know that the noble Lord thinks that his question is terribly clever, but it is perfectly possible for the Government to have ongoing priorities and for there to be specific priorities for this Budget. Those two things are not in any way contradictory. He will see what we have to say about defence in the Budget tomorrow; likewise, he will see what we have to say about the NHS, growing the economy and the cost of living.

Budget: Press Briefings

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right to say that there is always speculation ahead of a Budget. As he knows, I am not going to comment on the bond markets, but he is right to point out that the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the economy and sent interest rates soaring.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, on 10 November, the Chancellor said on BBC Radio:

“It would, of course, be possible to stick with the manifesto commitments, but that would require things like deep cuts in capital spending”.


Does that statement still stand?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I have said, I am being told by noble Lords opposite that speculation is wrong and now the noble Lord is asking me to speculate. As I have made very clear, I will not be commenting on individual tax measures.

Economic and Taxation Policies: Jobs, Growth and Prosperity

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Elliott on securing this debate, his excellent book and all the work he has been doing on jobs. I also congratulate a number of noble Lords who have spoken, especially my noble friend Lady Noakes for her remarks—which I entirely agree with—and my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Harper, who I will return to in a moment.

When thinking about this debate, I happened to read again the lecture that the then shadow Chancellor, now Chancellor, gave at the Mais lecture last year, in which she promised a “fundamental course correction” for the British economy. As the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, has just said, it is now 379 days since the Chancellor gave her first Budget. So how is this fundamental course correction going? There is, as I am sure we have all read and seen, a growing sense of instability fuelled by speculation, a lack of confidence in the future, and more people worrying about keeping their jobs—and that is just among members of the Cabinet. Out in the country, it is far worse. The Chancellor herself has said that the UK economy feels “stuck”, and today’s growth figures confirm that.

So why are we in this sorry predicament? My noble friends Lord Elliott and Lady Noakes made a number of points as to why this might be, and I will not repeat them in the time I have. At the top of my list is a point that my noble friend Lord Young made: the Chancellor has lost control of spending. Rather than take the right, but tough, decisions to slow down the spiralling cost of welfare—not even to stop its rise—the Chancellor backed down when Labour MPs said no. She did so despite the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Young said, the Prime Minister says the current system is unsustainable. Spending overall has overshot forecasts by over 4% since the spring of 2024. Adding to the pain is the impact of the misguided £25 billion tax rise on employers—referred to by my noble friend Lady Noakes—that is stoking unemployment and making inflation stickier.

The reason the Chancellor may have to raise income tax for the first time in 50 years—50 years—breaking Labour’s promises, is her “fundamental course correction”. But, as my noble friend Lord Harper just said, the Government refuse to accept any blame or any fault for the situation we are in. As he said, they are blaming everyone but themselves. Everyone knows this is nonsense. Last autumn, the Economic Affairs Committee, of which I was then chair, published a report warning that the Government must rebuild the nation’s fiscal buffer, given the global volatility and risks we face. The Chancellor’s reply assured the committee:

“The Budget took the necessary difficult decisions to put the public finances on a sustainable path—setting realistic plans”—


realistic plans—

“for public spending while raising revenue—to create the conditions for growth”.

She clearly thought she had done enough to rebuild our fiscal defences. She said she had built a fiscal buffer, but, in reality, it has turned out to be a wafer.

A tragedy is therefore unfolding in front of us. With an enormous majority, this Government have the ability to take tough decisions to reform our public services and cut welfare, but they have ducked those tough decisions. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor mouth the right sentiments about growth, stability and security, but their actions undermine those aspirations. What do we see 379 days after their cataclysmic Budget? The fundamental course correction the Chancellor has given us is taking us deeper into the mire. There is insecurity, instability and stagnation—the reverse of everything they promised. The fear is that it will require things to get even worse for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the noble Lord to do what they promised last year and give us the fundamental course correction this country really badly needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think I have misrepresented the situation in any way, shape or form. The OBR forecast that around two-fifths of the 4% impact had already occurred by the time the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement came into force and that GDP will be 2.7% lower by 2025, with the remaining reduction occurring by 2030, meaning the economy will be over £100 billion smaller than it otherwise would have been.

As I was saying, we have also heard from some of the most enthusiastic acolytes of Liz Truss about how to grow the economy, despite the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashing the economy and sending mortgage rates spiralling. I think we have long since abandoned any hope of an apology to the British people from the party opposite for its record on the economy over 14 years, but what is still shocking is its inability to show even the slightest hint of self-awareness for the damage it did to the British economy over the past 14 years or any awareness that that damage continues to scar our economy today, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton clearly set out.

The reality of that record over 14 years is stark, as my noble friend Lord Liddle said. First, there was austerity, mentioned by my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, which took demand out of the economy at exactly the wrong moment and cut investment, undermining the economy’s ability to grow, and left us ill-prepared for the future. Then a disastrous and tragically misjudged Brexit deal—interestingly, not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, in his opening speech—imposed new trade barriers equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for manufacturing and a 20% increase in tariffs for services, reducing total trade intensity by 15%. As a result, as I have said, the economy will be over £100 billion smaller by 2030.

The combined effect of these costly mistakes was devastating. Had the UK economy grown by the average of other OECD countries over those 14 years, it would be more than £150 billion larger today. The previous Parliament was the worst ever for living standards. Inflation hit 11.1% and was above target for 33 months in a row. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned business investment. She may recall that, under her Government, the UK had the lowest private investment levels in the whole of the G7, productivity growth entirely stalled and output per worker grew more slowly than in nearly every other G7 country.

These policy errors, chronic instability and low levels of investment have left deep scars on the British economy, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell set out. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, alongside the forthcoming Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility will set out the conclusions of its review into the supply side of the UK economy. I will not pre-empt those conclusions today, but the OBR may downgrade the historic assessment of the UK’s productivity and may conclude that the productivity performance we inherited from the previous Government was even weaker than previously thought.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify that his argument is that the Government have made no policy errors regarding their economic management over the last year?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am only five minutes into my speech; let us hear my whole speech before we conclude on that.

The OBR’s productivity assessment will be a look in the rear-view mirror, but the past mistakes of the previous Government do not need to determine our country’s future. While the record of the past 14 years may be even worse than previously realised, it underlines the importance of delivering higher and more sustainable economic growth, which has been the defining mission of this Government since we entered office. The noble Lords, Lord Elliott, Lord Harper and Lord Bridges, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned today’s growth figures. While they are, of course, lower than any of us would want to see, they confirm that the UK was the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year and show just how much more there is to do.

We will move further and faster with our growth strategy, set out clearly many times and built on the three pillars of ensuring economic and fiscal stability, reforming the economy and increasing investment. It is welcome that the IMF has said that this strategy focuses on the right areas to increase productivity. This strategy recognises that growth comes not from government but from businesses and investors and that there is a role for a strategic state, not to step back and let businesses fend for themselves, but to act in partnership with business by systematically removing the barriers to growth that it faces.

The first pillar, stability, is the foundation all else is built on. That began with the Government’s first Budget last October. The noble Lords, Lord Harper, Lord Swire and Lord Leigh of Hurley, could not help but mention the £22 billion black hole in the public finances we inherited, which the previous Government sought to conceal from the OBR, but once again—