Autumn Budget 2025

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. He is very courageous in the way that he still contributes to the proceedings of this House, albeit over the internet.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to have been able to tell way before the last election that Labour was going to win it. That seems to have been a pretty well-established fact long before the general election was held, although we did not know that the majority was going to be as big as it was. We all knew that Labour was going to win, so why did it not have a more coherent policy vis-à-vis the economy of this country?

We are talking now as though the unaffordability of the welfare state is something new. It has been there for a very long time, and Labour should have known that for ages and produced ideas for how to tackle it. When it was looking around for policies to follow, surely it could have done a lot worse than many of those of the Blair Government. They were re-elected more than once as a Labour Government and can be put down as one of the successful Labour Governments in this country in recent history. Why did Labour not look at what the Blair Government did and think, “Should we be emulating that as way forward in running the economy?”

The Government have put an enormous premium on the whole matter of growth, and that is absolutely right. But the problem with infrastructure growth is that it takes a very long time to come through. Orders get disputed the whole time. There is a dispute about a major nuclear power station, I think in Essex, because there is bird sanctuary next door, and it says that a number of rare birds will be wiped out if the power station is built. It is the first time I have heard of birds being affected by building power stations; you very much feel that any excuse is better than none to try to stop the progress of building this power station. The Prime Minister himself pointed out that £100 million was spent on a bat tunnel on HS2. Going by reports in the newspapers, none of the bats has gone into the tunnel but their number has increased in the meantime. It seems that we are getting slightly carried away by all these environmental concerns which slow everything down.

The answer is to look to the private sector. Before the election, it was very keen to expand and confidence was growing. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out, there was a lot of Budget speculation which meant that a lot of people who might have taken the decision to expand their business said, “There’s so much uncertainty around, I’ll sit on my hands and wait to see what the Budget produces”. To their alarm, the first Budget produced a whole mass of taxes that were damaging to small businesses, so they not only sat on their hands for that period but continued to do so and did not expand. That is why the economy is rapidly slowing down and unemployment is rising.

There was no question of the Blair Government ever taking this view towards the private sector. Indeed, they kept most of Thatcher’s reforms in place; they did not drive away the non-doms and rich people. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, who was a big chief in the Blair Government, went around saying that he was very comfortable with the filthy rich. It is extraordinary that no lessons have been learned from the Blair Government, and the result is that I do not think that this Government’s mismanagement of the economy will survive the next election.

Pension Fund Reliefs

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness talks of a sense of urgency, but, of course, she had 14 years to do something about this and did not. The previous Government never legislated for the reforms they brought forward. We are legislating for them. As I said, we are absolutely concerned that UK pension funds are investing less in the domestic economy, which is exactly why the pensions review is looking at the issue.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, one of the obligations on the trustees of pension funds is to get the best return for pensioners. Is the Minister resigned to the fact that, if we invest in British infrastructure, pensioners will be worse off as a result?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not sure that the noble Lord should talk down the British economy in quite that way.

Growing the UK Economy

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I was lucky enough to be in the House for the noble Lord’s question to my noble friend the Transport Minister, and I obviously agree with what my noble friend said to him. In terms of timescales, the Government have asked Heathrow to come forward with its proposal by the summer of this year, and we have said that we want to confirm planning consent by 2028. That is obviously an accelerated process, but we are determined to do everything it takes to accelerate it. I am confident that there will be spades in the ground at Heathrow within this Parliament. The third runway is part of a wider programme of expansion of Heathrow, including various terminal expansions, so without question there will be spades in the ground at Heathrow. However, we also want to see spades in the ground for the runway within this Parliament.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as is predictable, the Minister trotted out the usual thing about the black hole of £22 billion. On the other hand, the Government are looking at departmental budgets, which by most people’s reckoning are completely bloated, and looking for savings. What are the chances of those savings well exceeding £22 billion?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising the £22 billion—he knows it is one of my favourite topics, and I am always very happy to talk about it. It was obviously one of the most shocking features of our inheritance from the previous Government that they had £22 billion of commitments that they did not fund and sought to conceal from various government bodies. That is deeply shocking and should not be taken lightly. The noble Lord has said to me previously that the Government’s budgets are bloated; most government departments would dispute that, after decades of austerity under the party opposite. We know that public services are stretched extremely thin. I have asked him before for his examples of that bloating, and what savings he would propose. I would be more than happy to discuss any potential savings that he has in mind, but I think they are unlikely to reach the level that he describes.

United Kingdom Declining Birth Rate

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is a very important point and one that we should retain as we make policy.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, was the Minister not moved by reports in the press that AI is going to account for 6 million jobs in this country? If that happens, will we not be quite grateful for a low birth rate?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We have to ensure that changing technology works to the benefit of all in society and contributes to our key objective of economic growth.

Fiscal Rules

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. As I have said already, the Chancellor will set out the Government’s full fiscal plan, including the precise details of our fiscal rules, in tomorrow’s Budget.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, when the Minister was first talking about the so-called black hole, it was £21 billion. Does he accept that this is actually less than 2% of total government spending? It is almost inconceivable that anybody with their head screwed on properly in the Treasury could not find savings to that amount.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to talk about the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that was covered up from the British people, from this House and from the OBR, which has confirmed it by establishing its independent review. It was always £22 billion, contrary to what the noble Lord says. If he would like to come up with £22 billion of savings, I would more than like to hear them.

Overseas Territories: Tax Haven Status

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

The Government are not relaxed about offshore tax avoidance. We maintain that all tax avoidance needs to be stamped out, which is why we work so very closely with the overseas territories on tax avoidance, anti-money laundering and counterterrorism finance, including with registers of beneficial ownerships. We have very good relationships. We meet with our colleagues frequently to discuss how to put things in place such that they are implemented as quickly as possible.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, if some of the overseas territories ceased to be tax havens, they would become an even greater burden on the British taxpayer?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

As I said in my opening remarks, we encourage the overseas territories to develop sustainable and successful economies. As I also said, they are responsible for setting their own tax rates, and we will think about how future tax rates may change. It is also the case that tax rates will be underpinned by, in particular, pillar 2, which will be implemented via domestic rules across all overseas territories where it is relevant.

Financial Services and Markets Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of two investment companies as stated in the register. I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in bringing forward his Amendment 1 and other amendments. I feel strongly, as he has suggested, that what has been agreed for the REUL Bill should also be acceptable for this Bill. Indeed, one of my later amendments makes the same point. As he said, the Bill is in some sense a carve-out from the REUL Bill dealing exclusively with financial services. As for his other amendments, I will not repeat the arguments I made in Committee, but I look forward to hearing whether the Minister can give any greater assurance to the House today than she did at that time.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts does not seem to be with us, but I have collaborated with him over the retained EU law Bill, and I know his views are that Parliament has been collectively losing control of its agenda and that parliamentary sovereignty has been undermined. He has been chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and he notices that more and more business goes through both Houses under statutory instruments. That is not really what we should be going along with in either House, and it is disappointing that the other House does not seem to worry too much about the fact that it is losing its sovereignty and its power to control legislation. That seems to be a fact we have to deal with.

I have repeated this very often, but unlike most people in your Lordships’ House, I campaigned to leave the EU. I often wonder what would have happened if the people who were really concerned about the fact that we were getting all this legislation from the EU—inevitably, I accept—which we could neither amend nor reject knew that we would substitute it with stuff in respect of which the Executive are given all the power that had previously lain in Brussels. If we had campaigned in the country and told people that that was what was going to happen, I am not at all certain that the referendum would have been won by the leave campaign.

It strikes me as very odd that when we talk about taking back control, it seems to exclude Parliament. It does not seem to have a desire—particularly the other place—to actually take back control of legislation, which is what I think we should be doing. It is time we brought this to a halt. I do not have any great optimism that that is going to happen, but I would be more than happy to support the noble Lord’s amendment if he presses it to a Division.

[Lord Lisvane (CB)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to this amendment, although some quirk of technology has meant that my name does not appear on the Marshalled List today. I am delighted to join other noble Lords whose names are on the amendment. This is déjà vu all over again, as they say, because this amendment is very similar to one proposed to the retained EU law Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, which was approved by this House, sent to the Commons, sent back to us and returned in a slightly different form in the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and agreed today.

Perhaps I may very briefly recall what I said on that Motion, because it applies equally to this amendment. This would not set up an entirely new category of amendable SIs which form a new legislative family, as it were. To suggest that it does as a reason for opposing the amendment is to be frighted with false fire, to borrow Hamlet’s phrase. There are two statutes, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that have the power to amend SIs where the amendments are immediately effective. In my view, this is much more like the super-affirmative procedure, which is set out in some detail in the proposal contained in Amendment 117. The difference is that Ministers would not have the discretion to refuse the amendment which is suggested. It does not seem to me outrageous that Ministers should be subject to the will of Parliament, especially if a proposal might seriously disadvantage businesses or individuals. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.

Economy: Productivity

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, private business needs to feel confident about many things in order to undertake further investment decisions, of which the latter part of what the noble Baroness asked may be one. However, a number of other factors are important. In that regard, it is interesting that the latest evidence on investment is not only slightly more encouraging than was the case last year but perhaps ahead of some expectations.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that one of the reasons for low productivity in the United Kingdom is the seemingly unlimited supply of immigrant labour which is keeping down wage rates? Does he agree that if we manage to limit immigration as a result of Brexit, our productivity might go up?

[Lord O'Neill of Gatley]

My Lords, I am not sure that I would agree with my noble friend’s assertion. However, I agree with the inference that many things lie behind our apparently low and disappointing productivity performance, which I spend far too many hours trying to wade into. If you look at this in the kind of detail that I do, it is interesting to note that, if you take away the negative contributions made in those areas such as finance about which people are usually the most critical, our productivity performance since the recession of nine years ago is not any worse than that of any other member of the G7. There are many reasons behind our apparent—and probably realistic—disappointing productivity performance.

Income Tax: Top Rate

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

But, my Lords, the top 1% of income tax payers is now paying between 27% and 28% of all income tax, which is a higher proportion than at any point during the last Labour Government. The two changes that I have mentioned, which bring in more than £6 billion extra a year, apply only to the highest earners.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, despite the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, is it not true that lowering tax rates increases revenue, and does that not make it rather surprising that the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to lower the top rate to 40%?

[Lord Newby]

No, my Lords, it does not. HRMC estimates that if you reduce the top tax rate from 45% to 40%, the likely cost to the Exchequer will be about £1 billion.

Barnett Formula

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to agree with the noble Lord. It is, however, worth underlining the point that he has just made. There would be a £6 billion deficit compared to the figures in the Scottish Government’s November 2013 White Paper in respect of oil revenues, which would mean that for that reason alone the Scottish deficit in 2016-17 would be more than 6% of GDP, one of the biggest in the developed world.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as the progress of Scotland towards independence seems to be almost inexorable, should we not be getting them used to the idea of doing without English money and phasing out the Barnett formula over a period of years?

[Lord Newby]

Well, my Lords, that is exactly what we are doing. The transfer of tax revenue to the Scottish Government means that the block grant, the element to which the Barnett formula applies, is falling by two-thirds from approximately £30 billion to £10 billion.