Business Rates

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I start with perhaps a modicum of welcome because the combined impact of the Budget and the business rates revaluation prior to this announcement, frankly, left the pub industry on the verge of a crisis, with up to 50% of pubs under the threat of closure. Some relief has now been offered for many pubs, and I am glad that this lifeline has been extended to live music venues, which are the birthing ground of our very important music industry.

Do the Government recognise that the relief that they have just announced amounts roughly to only £1,650 per pub, which will still leave many in a critical financial hole? Do they recognise that pubs with a rateable value of over £100,000 are, in effect, not eligible, and that restaurants, cafés and soft-play areas—so many of those hospitality and leisure operations that lie at the heart of our high streets and communities—will get no relief from these changes whatsoever?

The chaos that has surrounded the announcement of the review—the change and uncertainty that has gone with it and the impact on the sector—surely points to the fact that we need to stop trying to fix the business rates system at the fringes. We need to take a proper step back and review the whole way in which business rates are structured, which, I would say, should head in the direction of land value. There is so much to be done around this area. It is time that the Government see that, rather than get into continuous messes by attempting to ameliorate a system that, frankly, is broken.

Do the Government also accept that the chaotic process that we have seen deeply underscores the need to include hospitality in the industrial strategy? At the very least, one would hope that the effect of that would be to force the Treasury to align tax policy with the economic goal of strengthening our high streets and our hospitality and leisure sectors, and to determine that they are a source of growth, not of constant crisis and constraint. Does the Minister accept that, until the Treasury gets aligned with that agenda, we will have constant issues like that? Frankly, that is not the best way to go.

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

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their comments and questions, and for their cautious welcome of what we have announced.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, ignored what we announced in the Budget: the £4.3 billion of support for those experiencing increases in business rates. As she knows, the previous valuation was based on property values during the Covid pandemic, which meant that rateable values were much lower. As a result of that valuation, some businesses, including the retail, hospitality and leisure venues that we are discussing, are now seeing an increase.

At the Budget, we announced three elements of support at a cost £4.3 billion, which neither noble Baroness mentioned in their comments. We are implementing transitional relief that will cap increases at 5% for the smallest properties and at up to 30% for the largest. For any business whose value increase has meant that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief, we are capping their increase. We have expanded the supporting small business relief scheme, to provide specific support to those who are currently eligible for the 40% RHL relief.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that the wider system needs reform; we absolutely agree on that and have begun that. We are reforming the business rates system by introducing permanently lower tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that what we are doing is temporary, but those new lower rates are permanent—unlike what the previous Government did—and they will be funded by higher rates on the most valuable properties, including those of online giants.

I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the previous Government’s plans were to scrap entirely the temporary Covid-era retail, hospitality and leisure relief in 2025—but she now says that more support should be offered. If they had won the last election, their plans clearly show that they would have removed it overnight in April last year. They now claim that they would extend it, so why did they not say so or include that in their forecasts or projections?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for what she described as her cautious welcome of what has been announced. We have of course been listening to the industry. We have announced that, from April, every pub in England will get 15% off its new business rates bill, on top of the support announced at the Budget. Their bills will then be frozen in real terms for a further two years. The noble Baroness noted that the support will be worth £1,650 for the average pub next year, but that means that three-quarters of pubs will see their bills either fall or stay flat next year. This decision will also mean that the amount of business rates paid by the pub sector as a whole will be 8% lower in 2028-29 than it is today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that pubs with ratable values of over £100,000 would not benefit, but we are clear that this will apply to all pubs. I am grateful for what she said about this applying to music venues too. Many live music venues are valued as pubs, and many pubs are grass-roots live music venues, so it would not be right to seek to draw the line so tightly as to include some but not others.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also talked about the structural issues that many of these businesses are facing, and she will know that the sector has raised concerns about the way that they are valued. The Government agree that this needs to be looked at. We are therefore launching a review that will examine how pubs are valued for business rates, and we will set out more detail on that in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spent a lot of her statement telling us about what businesses need. What they need most is stability; they did not need the previous Government, with the Liz Truss mini-Budget, Brexit and austerity, and all the consequences that they had. The noble Baroness commented on what we are doing for business. She will know that, under the previous Government, business investment was the lowest in the entire G7, and that, since the election, business investment has increased faster in this country than in any other G7 country. I am more than happy to compare her record with ours.

The noble Baroness will know that we are pressing ahead with wider regulatory reforms to help businesses, as well as carrying out licensing reform, and that we are looking at loosening planning rules to benefit pubs more generally. She will also know that we are doubling the hospitality support fund with £10 million of funding over three years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, talked about the importance of the sector for growth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about the challenges faced by the wider sector. I understand the challenges that many other retail, hospitality and leisure companies are facing. We have already taken significant steps to support businesses, including, as I said, the £4.3 billion of business rates support.

As we all know, consumers have changed their habits over the past decade and are increasingly working from home and shopping online. Combined with the pandemic and the increase in energy costs since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, these trends have continued to make it harder for high street businesses. Therefore, later this year the Government will bring forward a high street strategy, and we will work with businesses and representative bodies to look at what more the Government can do to support our high streets.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the previous Government wrecked the economy and gave us Brexit, which reduced our ability to pay for public services? The Opposition now seem to be calling for greater public expenditure and tax cuts. It sounds as though they have found not just one money tree but an orchard. Can the Minister explain how someone can call for more expenditure and less tax?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I very much agree with everything that my noble friend said. Among the long litany of the previous Government’s failures, their failure on growth was one of their most significant. We saw Brexit and the Liz Truss mini-Budget, and we know what business thought of that. We saw business investment across the whole economy fall to the lowest level in the entire G7. My noble friend is also absolutely correct to point out that, every time we debate the economy in the Chamber, the noble Baroness opposite supports every single piece of spending that we announce but opposes every single piece of revenue raising. It is quite clear that those two things do not add up.

On the Tory record more widely, we should note that 7,000 pubs have closed in the past 14 years, and that the previous Government’s plans were to scrap entirely the temporary Covid retail, hospitality and leisure relief in 2025. Their plans show that they would have ended it overnight. We have chosen a different path by extending that support with the help of £4.3 billion of additional support.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it would be churlish not to welcome the measures—so far as they go—that the Chancellor has introduced. However, does the Minister accept that it is small family businesses—the hair salons, cafés and restaurants, among others, to which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred—that will be directly affected by the lack of support? Does he accept that, if these small family businesses do not get support, it will damage their programme for growth and lead to a lack of growth and a loss of jobs?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I respectfully say to the noble Baroness that she must take what has been announced this week in the round with what was announced in the Budget. We spent £4.3 billion supporting exactly the type of businesses the noble Baroness mentions. We have expanded the supporting small business scheme to provide specific support to those who are currently eligible for the 40% RHL relief. Around one in three businesses continues to benefit from small business rates relief and does not pay anything at all. We have extended the second property grace period to support small businesses as they grow. So, I do not accept that we are not supporting those businesses. But equally, I absolutely understand the challenges that many retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are facing, which is exactly why, later this year, the Government will bring forward a high street strategy and work with businesses and representative bodies, looking at what more the Government can do to support our high streets.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that one of the things that will drive growth is consumer confidence. It is very hard for consumers to be confident when they see their high streets putting up shutters and “closed” signs. The Minister also talked about changed behaviour and the driving of online sales. Beneath that is a real inequity, in that the out-of-town warehouses which have been driving those digital sales have a rates square foot rate about a tenth, if not less, of that of the high street stores with which they compete. When the Minister is having this review, can he review not only the high streets but how the out-of-town warehouses are eroding those high streets?

[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.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

Of all the U-turns that have been executed since the Minister joined the Treasury team, whether on the family farm tax, business rates or the winter fuel payment, which is his favourite?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very happy to tell the noble Lord what my least favourite policy of the previous Government was, and that was Brexit.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me about the importance of certainty and security for businesses in the payment of business rates in particular? While local authority funding is predicated on the retention of business rates at a local level, as well as council tax rates, there is regional variation in the deployment of the collection of those rates, based on differential bandings according to the nature of properties in those areas. Will he consider the challenge that many small businesses face in having to pay business rates, compared to the longevity of property owners? Will he consider looking at the payment of business rates in future by business owners rather than businesses themselves as a way of smoothing out some of these challenges?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that question, which obviously comes from a position of deep expertise in this matter. I am more than happy to look at all the issues he raises and take them back to my Treasury colleagues to discuss them further.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, 3.5 million jobs are dependent on a successful hospitality industry in this country—that is obviously the entire supply chain. I spent a lot of my life in the airline industry, which is at one end of that. Notwithstanding that, when we look at tourism, which encompasses hotels, taxis, restaurants and cafes, this Government have a complete lack of understanding of the impact of what they are doing. They are under pressure because they will not take steps to address the welfare bill, so they are taking moneys and taxes from areas that often cannot afford it. We know that will cause long-term damage, despite this sop of the slight reduction for pubs in the next couple of years.

As we look at the welfare bill, will the Government please reconsider what they are doing, and instead of making another U-turn—well, we would like a really big U-turn on this one: we would like it to be abolished—take a real look at what else they can do to raise revenue where we know expenditure is wholly excessive and cannot be carried on?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with the first thing the noble Baroness said, on the importance of the sector and jobs; I did not agree with anything else she said. She said that we have a lack of understanding: I just wonder what she would have done. We spent £4.3 billion in the Budget supporting these businesses: she did not acknowledge that. She did not acknowledge that the previous Government, whom she presumably supported, would have ended Covid relief overnight and had absolutely no plans to extend it, as we have. She said she would abolish business rates. Well, she had 14usb years to do that, and she did not. I wonder how she would now fund the abolition of business rates, and what other services she would cut to do that.

The noble Baroness mentioned airlines. The Government have redesigned the 2023 transitional relief scheme to provide generous support for large properties such as airports and those in other industrial strategy sectors. That is extremely important. She mentioned hotels, and I have answered that question already. As I say, I fundamentally disagree with her. The Government she supported would have ended this relief overnight; we have extended it.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, following the moderately good reception to my last question, I am going to push my luck. Following on from the from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, when this review is under way, can the Treasury review a commercial landowner levy rather than a straight business rate? That does not penalise investment, and it puts the onus on the people who actually own the land. If the Minister is not 100% au fait with the Liberal Democrat policy on this, I would be very happy to arrange a briefing for him and colleagues.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I may not have read all the Liberal Democrat policy documents as thoroughly as perhaps I should have. I cannot commit the review to considering specific things right now, but I am more than happy to take those thoughts back to the Treasury.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Although my experience of government is now over 30 years old, the one message I remember from being in Cabinet is that on matters of taxation and investment, the Government have to get it right first time. That is the only way to establish a pro-growth, pro-business strategy. So, what I would love to hear from the Minister, having heard the messages from all sides of the House, is that the relief announced—one of what his noble friend the Minister admitted is 14 U-turns—is probably a little late and not enough. Therefore, the future must rely on a better strategy. Is the Minister confident that the consultation the Government are having right across the business sector is sufficient to ensure that they get that pro-business, pro-growth strategy right?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I say, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that I am being lectured by Conservatives on stability and investment when we had 14 years of instability and chronic underinvestment. We saw underinvestment in the public sector and the lowest rates of private sector investment in the entire G7 so, as I said, with the greatest respect, I may not take all those lectures. Obviously, investment is vital to our economy. Stability is vital to that, as are the reforms that we are taking, not least in terms of planning, for example, to get more investment into our economy.

The noble Lord says that the measures we have taken are a little late. Of course, we spent £4.3 billion in the Budget, and it was vital that we did that. He says that they are not enough. As I said, the previous Government, if they had won the election, would have done absolutely nothing. It is important to contrast that, but I agree with what he said about consulting and working hand in hand in partnership with business, so that we absolutely understand and get the most pro-growth, pro-business policies that we possibly can.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister noticed that the Opposition say that the private sector does not like U-turns, they say they do not like U-turns, and then they call for more U-turns? What is their strategy for dealing with our current problems?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I cannot answer for the strategy of the party opposite—I am sure we would all like to know—but what matters most is that we get to the right policy and I believe that we have done so in this case.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Official Opposition have actually come forward with plans for the high street, which we would be very glad to share with the Minister as he does his high street review. I think we should have not only Lib Dem ideas but Conservative ideas. We have a new Opposition now. We are looking forward, not backwards. We are very keen to see the country grow and the high streets flourish.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness would like to look forwards and not backwards, but I am not sure the country shares that view. The country remembers the past 14 years and the damage that party opposite did to the economy, the public services and the fabric of our nation. As I said already, the noble Baroness cannot wriggle out of the fact that, had her party won the election, it would have ended this relief overnight entirely in 2025. It was in her plans—the plans that we inherited from her. If she now claims that she would have extended the relief, why did her party not say so and include it in their forecasts or projections? We have to take what her party says now with a huge pinch of salt. As I have said, the party opposite always supports the spending that we are doing but does not support a single one of the measures we are taking to raise the revenue for that spending. I suspect that its plans are equally uncosted.

Grass-roots Music Venues

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the 2025 Budget on grassroots music venues.

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

My Lords, we are introducing permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, including grass-roots music venues, worth nearly £1 billion a year. As part of the changes to business rates, we announced a £4.3 billion support package to protect those facing higher bills after revaluation. We have also more than doubled funding to support independent artists and grass-roots music venues as part of the music growth package, building on the UK’s strength as a world-leading creative industries destination.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lord, that is a very welcome response from the Minister, but I wonder what assessment His Majesty’s Government have made of forecasts that increased business rate valuations could result in a closure of between 80 to 120 grass-roots music venues and place a further 120-plus at risk. How do the Government square this with their welcome commitment to high street regeneration, creative sector growth, the night-time economy and protecting cultural infrastructure? Will the Minister agree to meet representatives from the sector to discuss the issue further?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the question. I am very happy to meet the groups that he mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that the creative sector is extremely important to the UK economy. It is a major employer and a significant part of our economy. It has been included as a priority sector in our industrial strategy, recognising its high growth potential, particularly through the development and adoption of new technologies.

On business rates, which my noble friend raised, as I have said before in your Lordships’ House, I acknowledge that the revaluation means that sectors such as pubs and music venues will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them. That is why we are working with the sectors involved to ensure they get the support they need. Noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and Chancellor said on this in recent days. I will not add to that or comment on any speculation, but where there are further comments to be made I will of course come back to your Lordships’ House to discuss them.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, given that the Music Producers Guild reports that 50% of recording studios are considering closure within the year, with rateable value increases of up to 100%, will the Minister commit to urgently reviewing their exclusion from the retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier, and their misclassification as office space by the Valuation Office Agency, particularly given that film studios, which are similarly not public-facing, already benefit from 40% targeted relief?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Government have been very clear that the lower multipliers will broadly reflect the scope of the current retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief, which is centred around retail, hospitality and leisure properties that are reasonably accessible to visiting members of the public. If a recording studio forms part of a single property with a qualifying hospitality or retail business, and the hospitality or retail aspect is the main purpose of the property, it will qualify for the lower multipliers.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, the whole House will agree that music venues are a vital part of our cultural ecosystem. Music venues are now benefiting from a voluntary grass-roots levy levied on concert tickets, which I understand the Government are keeping under review with a view to introducing a statutory levy. The Government are also talking about a tourist tax. I suspect I know what the Minister’s answer will be, but would it make sense to roll up consultation on a tourist tax and a ticket levy into one single tax?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think so. I shall repeat what my right honourable friend Ian Murray, the Culture Minister, said on the industry levy:

“My ambition is to see the voluntary levy in place for as many concerts as possible and, as a milestone in that progress, for at least 50% of tickets on sale for stadium and arena shows in 2026”


to have adopted the levy by 31 December.

“Following this, I would like to see this target brought as close to 100% as possible”.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is the Minister aware that as well as the possibility of closures, there is the danger that our recording studios may up sticks and move abroad? With the continuing effect of Brexit on the music industry, unfortunately, they will not need a great deal of encouragement.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As noble Lords will know, I am very happy to agree with the noble Earl on the last point he raises: the incredibly damaging effect of Brexit on that sector in particular. He will like to know that, along with the EU, we have jointly recognised the value of travel and cultural artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists, and we will continue our efforts to support travel and cultural exchange. We will explore how best to improve arrangements for touring across the European continent with the EU and other EU member states.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that I am leading a fan-led review of live music as commissioned by the Culture Committee in the House of Commons. One of the things that comes clearly from fans’ voices is that they are happy to pay a levy if they know it is going to grass-roots music venues in order to support them, unlike the obscure levies they sometimes have to pay, or other service charges on top of ticket prices. With that in mind, will the Government commit in the forthcoming ticketing legislation to include taking powers for a statutory levy just in case the voluntary levy does not work out?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for the work he is doing in the review he mentions. I do not think it is for me to commit the Government to that specific point, but I will of course take it back and discuss it with colleagues in other departments as well.

[The Lord Bishop of Hereford]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answers. Across the country, churches provide the largest network of performance spaces available to professional and amateur groups for music making and other artistic endeavours, so I thank him for the recent announcement regarding the new places of worship renewal fund. But I am sure he will be aware that there are thousands of churches and other faith communities across the country waiting to know how that scheme will operate. Will the Minister let us know when the details of the scheme will be published and whether the Government will work with us to ensure the scheme is workable, consistent and fair, especially in the levying of VAT?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful for the support that the right reverend Prelate set out in his question. I assure him that that will be responded to very shortly.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that music venues contribute hugely to growth, particularly in market towns and cities, and that the night-time economy suffered greatly during Covid. Will he discuss with his colleagues the impact that the agent of change principle is having, especially when it is not followed to the letter, where poorly soundproofed residential developments are built in close proximity to an existing music venue? It can force a music venue to close down, despite it being very popular.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will absolutely do what the noble Baroness asks. The Government have heard exactly what she said: that the existing policy to mitigate the impact of development on existing activities, including live music, is not always applied effectively. The creative industries sector plan committed to improving the implementation of the agent of change principle. MHCLG’s current consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework proposes that the policy be more explicit about the matters to be considered, such as both the current and permitted levels of activity within existing uses, which includes licensing for music and cultural venues. This will enable decision-makers to consider the right information early on, addressing the conflict between new and existing development.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, live music venues are the R&D incubators for our creative industries. Some 53% of venues made no profit last year, and the Government’s choices on national insurance contributions and business rates have given them an additional tax bill of £7 million. At a recent helpful meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, a number of noble Lords met representatives of music venues who said that one of the difficulties is hearing different things from the Treasury and from the Valuation Office Agency. So regarding the meeting the Minister’s kindly agreed to on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, may I encourage him to bring along somebody from the Valuation Office Agency to help clarify the situation for these vital parts of our grass-roots music sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not in a position to promise who specifically will attend the meeting, but I will absolutely take that representation back to the department to see if it is possible. I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of music venues; as he says, they are the R&D incubator for the rest of the sector. As part of the industrial strategy, the Government have recognised music and performing and visual arts as a priority sub-sector, and we have recognised the potential for growth. The UK is the third biggest music market globally. As you all know, as part of the music growth package, we are backing the next generation of British talent by doubling funding to support independent artists and grass-root music venues.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister take back to Whitehall the very clear message on the importance of the music industry, including for Britain’s place in the world, that he has identified? No one starts their career playing the O2; they learn their trade—particularly how to relate to an audience—by playing the small venues, night after night. This is hugely important for our soft power but also for a significant part of our economy. Is that understood in Whitehall?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I hope it is understood. I agree with much of what my noble friend says. He will know that we have provided £2.5 million of funding this year for Arts Council England’s Supporting Grassroots Music Fund, enabling grass-roots music venues, recording studios, promoters and festivals to apply for grants to develop new revenue streams, make repairs and improvements, and enhance live music experiences.

Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]

Lord Livermore Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, while the Government’s position on this matter has been made clear during earlier stages of both this Bill and the recent Crown Estate Act, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on his Bill. As this House has heard previously, the Government do not support the devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales, as we believe the way it currently operates provides the best outcomes for Wales and the wider United Kingdom. The addition of two new Crown Estate commissioners with special responsibility for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively is a positive step and will ensure that the Crown Estate board continues to work in the best interests of Wales. In answer to my noble friend Lord Berkeley, we have no such plans that he asks about.

While I commend the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on his Bill, the Government’s position is clear that we do not support devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales. Therefore, I must express reservations on behalf of the Government on this Bill.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords for contributing and making the points that they have. I believe that these principles could well apply further afield in due course, though perhaps not immediately. I noted well the points made by the Minister; I only hope that the opportunity will now be given for colleagues from Wales in the House of Commons to make their voices heard from all sides of the House, and perhaps the Government could then think further about it on that basis.

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we have more bad news this morning from the ONS on job numbers in hospitality. That makes it even more important that we receive clear answers to the following questions. Why did the Government not get the new rating arrangements right first time in the Budget, when we now know that they already had the relevant information on pubs from the Valuation Office Agency? Following briefing to the FT last week, not only pubs but also restaurants and hotels do not know where they stand from 1 April. This is agony for them. When will the Government make a clear statement of their intentions?

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

As the noble Baroness knows, and as I have said before, the previous revaluation was based on property values during the Covid pandemic, which meant that rateable values were much lower. That means that some businesses, including retail, hospitality and leisure venues, are now seeing an increase as a result of this valuation. At the Budget we therefore announced three elements of support at a total cost of £4.3 billion. We implemented transitional relief; we have capped the increase for any business whose value has increased so that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief; and we have expanded the supporting small businesses scheme.

But, as the noble Baroness quite rightly says—and as I have acknowledged in your Lordships’ House before—the revaluation means that pubs and others will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them. That is why we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs. Noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have both said on this in recent days. I will not add to that now or comment on speculation. When there are further comments to be made, I am sure I will be back here to discuss them with noble Lords.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, given that grass-roots music venues and recording studios do not qualify for RHL relief because of the way “visiting members of the public” is defined, will Ministers commit to reviewing or amending the eligibility criterion so that businesses integral to the creative economy are not excluded?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely hear what the noble Lord says, and I understand the points he is making. As I said, noble Lords will have heard what the Prime Minister and Chancellor have said in recent days. I will not add to that now, but when there are further comments to be made, I am sure I will be able to discuss them with the noble Lord.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, when we are talking about business rates, are any of the many thousands of Turkish barbers, as they are so called, vape shops and nail bars—which are all cash only and which have infected our villages, towns and cities—paying any business rates? Are any of them paying tax? We know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime and county lines drugs. They are getting away for free. The whole thing seems to be for free, and they are laughing at us. Meanwhile, our pubs and our hospitality as a whole are on a knife-edge of existence. How is that fair?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness says. HMRC has announced substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses she mentioned, and I think she will have seen several of them closing in recent months. She is quite right that more needs to be done. She is absolutely right to talk about the importance of the hospitality industry, and we completely recognise that. It plays an incredibly important role in the UK economy, employing more than 2 million people. It is vital to the life of high streets across the UK, and we will do what we can to support it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will repeat the adage I used formerly: measure twice, cut once. Does the Minister understand that there is real urgency to get response and relief now within the hospitality industry and for pubs, as they face uncertainty? Many, believing that the blows had ended, went ahead and hired or invested and are now unsure whether they are economically viable. Has the Minister looked at the impact of this uncertainty, particularly on the independents, which I understand are disproportionately affected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I understand and agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness says. It is important that we are able to create certainty for those businesses, but we did spend £4.3 billion at the time of the Budget in support of exactly the businesses she described. We are implementing transitional relief to cap the amount that bills increase for businesses that would otherwise have seen big increases. For any business whose values increase so that they are no longer eligible for small business rates relief, we are capping that increase, and we have expanded the supporting small businesses scheme. As I say, that is at a total cost of £4.3 billion, so we absolutely recognise the issues facing those businesses. The revaluation means that pubs and others will struggle in relation to the business rates applicable to them, which is exactly why we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the retail and hospitality industries are often where youngsters who find it difficult to get into the workplace get their first foothold. Understandably, there have to be increases in the overheads that these organisations are paying, but can the Minister look at ways in which these organisations might be helped to bring some of those people who really need their first job into the employment market?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the important role that those businesses play in giving young people their first jobs, and I agree with her. We are taking significant measures to help the UK hospitality sector, which employs more than 2 million people and is vital to high streets across the UK. Based on recommendations from the licensing taskforce, we published a new National Licensing Policy Framework for the hospitality sector at the time of the Budget. We are exploring planning reforms to help pubs and hospitality to expand, and the hospitality support fund has helped pubs in rural areas to diversify, ensuring that they can continue in their role as vital community hubs.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, on pub companies, there is no doubt that the tenants are facing major problems in the UK, but does the Minister agree with me that, although those pubs are struggling, brewers and pub companies are making record profits? Is it not time they passed that on to the pubs themselves?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is correct to say that pubs have been struggling in this economy for a long time. In the previous 14 years under the last Government, 7,000 pubs closed in the UK, so this is a long-standing issue. On his wider question, I am more than happy to look into that.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, as the former chief executive of the British Beer & Pub Association, I am only too conscious of the problems that the hospitality industry has faced over a large number of years. I listened to the Minister’s answers from the Peers’ Gallery in the Commons yesterday, and the unwillingness to give any indication to the industry as to when decisions will be given to it, whichever fields may be covered, means that it is totally unable to plan. The Minister’s answer today yet again gave no indication of whether there will be a response soon, at some time in the next few weeks or before the next financial year starts.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think I heard a question at the end there. As I have said, we are working with the sector to ensure that it gets the support it needs.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, given my noble friend’s question, and given the importance of hospitality for employment—and the reference in a previous question to the number of young people who are unemployed—why is hospitality not included in the Government’s industrial strategy?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That is an excellent question. Of course, we have separate strategies for the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. With the industrial strategy, we are trying to do something different from what that strategy is doing. Just because a sector is not in the industrial strategy, that does not mean we do not value that sector extremely highly and do all we can for it.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, there are many charity shops in the high streets across this country. They receive 80% mandatory relief and often up to 100% discretionary. Many of these charities are actually multimillion-pound businesses. Notwithstanding the pressures on the high street and the pressures on small businesses, obviously, with these forthcoming increases, does the Minister agree that perhaps it is about time that we looked into this issue to make sure that those on the high street are paying a fair rate for their business rates?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not disagree with what the noble Baroness says. It is very important to say that we are fundamentally reforming the business rates system by introducing permanently lower business tax rates for more than 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, funded by a higher rate on the most valuable properties. I think that is absolutely the right thing to do.

Public Sector Productivity

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s capacity to increase productivity, particularly in the public sector.

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

My Lords, in the decade from 2010, the UK economy saw the lowest productivity growth since the Napoleonic Wars. This led to the lowest growth in living standards ever recorded. This Government inherited a situation where public sector productivity was 5.6% below pre-pandemic levels. Reversing that performance is the number one mission of this Government. As part of our growth strategy, we have set out measures to increase productivity, including reforms to planning and skills, record levels of investment in R&D, new investment in transport connectivity, and a modern industrial strategy.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, here is another statistic: the ONS has reported that total public service productivity in the UK fell by 0.7% in Q2 of 2025 compared with the previous year and that healthcare productivity fell by 1.5% over the same period. Public service productivity continues to lag behind that of the private sector, yet this Government have overseen a surge in the number of civil servants, with many still working from home; inflationary public sector pay deals, without specific and direct productivity links of the kind that are common in business; more state-controlled activity; and more regulation and taxes on business. Does the Minister agree that this is actually eroding the prospect of UK per capita growth, which is essential for the success of the Government’s ambitions?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not agree with that. On a point of fact, the noble Baroness mentions NHS productivity. The latest figures from the NHS show that NHS productivity has grown by 2.4% in April to July 2025 compared to the same period last year. Once again, the noble Baroness criticises the fact that we are seeking to pay the public sector workforce properly. She will be aware that a workforce that is efficient and well rewarded is essential to increasing productivity—she always talks about the need for increased productivity, but she never backs the measures that actually go to deliver it. I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise some of the measures that this Government are taking. At the spending review, the Government established a programme of public service reform to drive greater productivity. As part of that, the Office for Value for Money worked closely with departments to identify £14 billion of efficiencies. The noble Baroness did not mention that in her question. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced that we will deliver a further £2.8 billion of efficiencies and savings in 2028-2029.

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, much of the future improvement in productivity in the NHS is predicated on the adoption of innovative technologies. Is the Minister content that there is sufficient investment in the continuing development of the NHS workforce to facilitate the adoption of that technology and deliver that improvement in productivity?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am. We are investing £10 billion in digital technologies within the NHS. We have introduced a 2% efficiency and productivity target in the NHS for each year of this Parliament. That is supported by the Government’s 10-year health plan for England, which will improve outcomes for patients and deliver better value for money for taxpayers. The noble Lord is absolutely right that digital technologies and their adoption is vital to that. As I say, that is why we have invested £10 billion in it. We are moving more healthcare into the community and we are focusing more on the prevention of illnesses.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, in a recent pilot of private sector companies which were working a four-day week, over 90% chose to keep these arrangements because of seriously increased productivity. Does the Minister agree that this should be expanded to the public sector, as called for by the trade unions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not believe that that is government policy right now.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this Question caused me to take a look at how the Government measure productivity. It strikes me as extraordinarily quantitative, taking into consideration almost no issue of quality. I am concerned that if AI is trained on these existing models, we are going to dig ourselves into a worse hole rather than make things better. Are the Government looking at how productivity is measured to give us something far more useful and valuable?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness said. I noticed the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, who is very interested in this point as well, was on his feet. We have discussed it before in previous debates. We recognise the challenges in measuring public sector productivity, given the diversity of inputs and outputs in public services. The ONS recently published a review of its metrics. It has done a wide-ranging review into how productivity is measured and set out improvements that are now under way in many areas, such as healthcare, education and social security administration. It has included new quality adjustments, which better account for outcomes. I will take back to the Treasury the point the noble Baroness makes about the future adoption of AI.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

It is fair to say the ONS has a particular problem measuring NHS and public sector productivity because of the difficulty in measuring the outputs and inputs. None the less, the ONS reckons that public sector productivity has dropped 4.2% since 2019 and that, if it was at the same level as private sector productivity, the UK economy would have grown by 3%. Part of the problem is the measurement and part of the problem is the employment policies in the public sector. Will the Minister recognise the OBR’s warning that the Employment Rights Act will

“likely have material, and probably net negative, economic impacts on employment, prices, and productivity”?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No. As the noble Lord says, public sector productivity has dropped significantly since 2019. This Government inherited a situation in which public sector productivity was 5.6% below pre-pandemic levels. That is clearly unacceptable and there are far greater issues going on than those that the noble Lord raises. I hope, as I have said before, that he will acknowledge some of the things this Government are doing to drive greater productivity in the public sector. We are working with the Office for Value for Money to identify £14 billion of efficiencies. We have gone further than that and identified a further £2.8 billion of efficiencies. We are investing in digital and AI transformation, workforce reform, rationalising the Government estate and improving procurement processes.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, there is growing support for a social media ban for all those under the age of 16. In the interests of public sector productivity, would the Minister consider a similar ban during working hours for all government officials and civil servants under the age of 60?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think I would. I suspect social media, when used correctly, can help enhance productivity.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that, under both parties at the end of the last century, we attempted to beat this problem of productivity in the public sector by developing the private finance initiative idea? For a time, it was quite successful, although it did not end happily. Is he aware—perhaps he is not—that seven or eight of the most advanced countries in the world use developed and expanded versions of PFI that are much more sophisticated than ours? As they learned from us in the first place, perhaps we can learn a bit from them.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. Partnerships with the private sector have an important part to play in the public sector. Obviously, the public sector can learn a great deal from the private sector, and, I hope, vice versa. That is why we announced in the spending review that we will be carrying out more public/private partnerships. Clearly, there is a lot to learn from the previous experience of PFI; we must make sure that we learn those lessons, and we should also learn the lessons from other countries and their experiences in that regard.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, productivity in rural Britain is just 82% of its urban counterpart— a number that is estimated to fall to 79% by 2040. Making up this difference would add over £40 billion to the UK’s GDP. What efforts are His Majesty’s Government taking to improve this disparity?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We talked before about AI and digital adoption. Digital adoption is incredibly important when it comes to rural communities—ensuring that they have access to extremely fast broadband, for example, will be important. Working from home has been mentioned. There are interesting studies that show that, particularly in rural areas where it is more difficult to travel to work, working from home can significantly improve productivity.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is absolutely right that the big impact on investment, and therefore productivity, in the UK came as a result of austerity policies, a poor Brexit deal and a failure of industrial policy. However, I want to ask about quality of management in the UK. We know that that is key to workforce engagement, health and well-being, and job design and satisfaction, which, in turn, impacts on productivity. Will my noble friend consider convening a discussion with business schools about whether our education system for managers is fit for purpose and whether we can make improvements to improve workforce engagement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend asks a really interesting question and I am very happy to consider the point that she raises. The quality of management makes a massive difference in both the private and the public sector. We talked before about working from home. It is well documented that the better the quality of management, the more productivity comes from working from home. I am happy to consider my noble friend’s point.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Government quietly announced over Christmas that the agricultural and business property reliefs threshold would increase from £1 million to £2.5 million. That change is welcome but it is plainly a U-turn, following well over a year of pressure from farmers, other family businesses and the Conservative Benches. First, does the Minister accept that this cruel delay caused unnecessary anxiety and real distress for the farming community and those operating family businesses across the country? Secondly, given that the harm was clear and the opposition sustained, why did the Government wait so long to act, which maximised the damage as families took important and irreversible decisions?

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. May I first take this opportunity to wish her a belated happy birthday for the weekend just past?

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support for the measures that we announced shortly before Christmas. It is absolutely right that, following the reforms to the reliefs that we announced in the Budget in 2024, the Government consulted about the reforms with the farming community, as she says, and with family businesses. We have now carefully considered this feedback and have acted, and that was the right thing to do. We have acted to protect more family farms and family-owned businesses, while maintaining a core principle that more valuable agricultural and business assets should make a greater contribution.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I recommend a carpenter’s rule to the Government: “Measure twice, cut once”. Can the Government tell us their assessment of the serious harm that was done to our vital family farming sector by the devastating mistake of their original tax policy? I am glad that they have recognised that and have at least made some change. However, would it not benefit the economy more to abandon this tax policy altogether—it will now raise next to nothing—close the tax loopholes exploited by private equity, which were never actually touched by the policy in the first place, and focus on rebuilding trust and revitalising our critical agricultural sector?

[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.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I welcome, without reservation, the change made by the Government. The Minister will be aware of the considerable concern that there was among small farmers in Wales and the impact that the uncertainty was having on their sector. In that context, can he also have a look at the threat to that sector from the uncertainty arising from the possibility of imports from Australia and the southern hemisphere, which in a few years’ time could well undermine our domestic sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for what we have announced. I absolutely hear what he says about those trade agreements made by the previous Government and I am more than happy to look further at what he asks about.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend on the Front Bench made it very clear that farmers had to campaign long and hard to get this necessary change, and it happened at the very last minute. A similar campaign is being waged by the hospitality industry, which faces a near doubling of its business rates over the next three years. Will the Government force it to campaign long and hard and insist on no change before they do the right thing in the end?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The previous revaluation was based on property values during the Covid pandemic. Rateable values were much lower—perhaps artificially lower—at that point. I understand that pubs and other hospitality venues, such as hotels, are now seeing increases as a result of the latest revaluation. We have provided a £4.3 billion support package. Without that, pubs would have faced a 45% increase in total bills for next year. Because of the support that we have put in place, we have got that down to 4%. However, I acknowledge that the revaluation means that pubs and others will struggle with the business rates that are applicable to them. That is why we are working with the sector and will continue to do so. We are very open to discussions with it about other measures, such as more freedom for licensing and the freedom to open for longer.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

Farming is a very important part of the rural economy and the basis of the food and drink sector. The Treasury is to be congratulated on recognising the reality of asset values while maintaining the principle of inclusion for inheritance tax—that entrepreneurs more generally cannot use farmland to shelter their business assets. The emphasis must now be on rebuilding relationships with the farming sector, especially following the very poor trade deals that were done by the Conservative Governments, in which agriculture has been jeopardised in favour of industry. Can my noble friend the Minister update the House on better trade alignment with our European neighbours on standards more generally and SPS regulations in particular? I declare my interest on the register as having a farm in Cheshire.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the support that he sets out for the measures that we have announced. He is right about the importance of the farming sector to our economy and our society. The Government have allocated a record £11.8 billion to sustainable farming and food production over the course of this Parliament. That includes the largest financial investment in nature-friendly farming that has ever been seen. My noble friend is also right to point to the importance of the EU reset to the farming sector. I was very pleased to see the commitment to an SPS agreement as part of that EU reset. I assure him that the UK Government are ready to move very quickly to secure that agreement and that the negotiations are ongoing.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I commend the Government on adjusting the threshold to £2.5 million, which I and other Cross-Benchers advocated a year ago in this place and which strikes the right balance. However, how many agricultural, forestry and fishing businesses closed in the 12 months since the 20% IHT measure was announced? How does that compare with the year before? I believe that the ONS has released this data. What redress, if any, will be offered to those businesses that have closed?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not have that data to hand, but I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is now a shortfall in resources for the Government, can the Minister look at trust funds? These are the major weapon used by very rich people to avoid tax on inheritance.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is right that everybody pays their fair share towards the public services and that the tax system is based on fairness. I am confident that we have announced measures in the previous two Budgets to make sure that the tax system is fairer.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, further to the question from the Cross Benches, does the Minister accept that some family farms, frightened as they were by the original plan, have taken irrevocable actions in terms of assets and how they run their businesses? Does the Treasury accept any responsibility for scaring those people into business threatening decisions—unnecessarily, as it turns out?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I said in answer to previous questions, it was right that we consulted with the farming community and family businesses about these reforms, that we listened to the feedback that we received, and that we acted to protect more family farms and family-owned businesses while maintaining the core principle that more valuable agriculture and business assets should make a greater contribution.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

On that point, why did the Minister not do it before rather than after?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I said, it was right that we took time to listen to the consultation with the farming community and family businesses. It is right that we have listened to that feedback and that we have now acted.

OBR: Resignation of Chair

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, more and more information is emerging about the unfortunate decisions that individuals took during those weeks of pre-Budget speculation. Inspired by leaks from No. 10 and No. 11, stocks were sold, money was taken out of pensions, jobs were destroyed in hospitality and elsewhere, and hard workers and entrepreneurs left the UK to avoid rumoured exit taxes. There is a case for either an open pre-Budget process or a traditional purdah arrangement. There is absolutely no case for setting the rules in one way and acting in another. Will the Minister take that message home to his ministerial colleagues?

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

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and the points that she made. I should say very clearly that we take the Budget process extremely seriously and put the utmost weight on Budget secrecy. She will know that a leak inquiry is now under way, with the full support of the Chancellor and the whole Treasury team. She will also know that the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury will conduct a review of the Treasury’s security processes to inform future fiscal events. We will, of course, also work closely with the OBR to ensure that robust security arrangements are in place before the spring forecast and for all future forecasts. On the other points that the noble Baroness raises, she will be aware that the FCA has now written to the Treasury Select Committee confirming that it has not commenced an enforcement investigation.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware from things I have said previously that it would be worth taking a look at the Swedish approach and that of some other countries to an open Budget process that gets away from the kind of shenanigans that we saw in the past weeks. He did not answer me when I raised that before. Will he now commit to taking it back for the Treasury to look at and think about?

Focusing on the OBR, the more I look at this episode, the more I ask myself whether any digital-based data can be truly secure. It is almost like a cat-and-mouse game at the moment, with fists being put into dykes to try to stem leaks, but nothing is reliably effective, and AI will surely be a game-changer that aggravates this. Will the Government consider an open dialogue with the public, the media and, in the case of sensitive financial reports, the financial markets, to consider how we handle data in this changed world, so that we no longer have this environment of leaks and secrecy but find a better way forward?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She raised her suggestion about the Swedish model before. I think I said then that I do not think that we had any intention of taking that forward, and I say the same thing again today.

It is important to say that we remain absolutely committed to the independence of the OBR. That is incredibly important to the fiscal framework and to our commitment to economic stability. Clearly, it is important that the information it has is treated with the utmost secrecy. That is why it is important that, as I have said, we will work closely with the OBR to ensure that it has robust security arrangements in place for how it treats information.

On the next steps that we intend to take, the OBR has rightly conducted its initial investigation as quickly as possible, and we should now take the time, as I think I have said to the noble Baroness before, to consider its findings and the report in greater detail. The report into the OBR also made the point that it

“could not, in the time available, carry out deeper forensic examination”

of other recent economic and fiscal outlook events and recommended that such an event takes place. We have committed to doing that with the National Cyber Security Centre, as I think the noble Baroness alluded to, although it is important that we note that the report found no evidence of hostile cyber activity.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a question asked in all innocence. It is now 15 years since the OBR was established. Some of us have lived through the period before the OBR and the period since. Does my noble friend know of any academic studies or the like that suggest that Budgets were better prepared, more efficiently kept secret where necessary and altogether held in higher esteem before the existence of the OBR compared with the period since, or is the reverse true?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not aware of any academic studies into what my noble friend asks about. I had the privilege of working in the Treasury for 10 years before the OBR came into existence, and I have now worked on two Budgets since the OBR came into existence. It is worth repeating that the Government are committed to the independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility. There is academic evidence that suggests that stability has a significant advantage in terms of the performance of the economy, economic growth et cetera. The OBR should and does remain at the heart of economic and fiscal policy-making, and the strength of that institution is a vital pillar in the Government’s commitment to economic stability.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I have two brief points for the Minister. First, given the importance of the OBR, why is it so lightly resourced? Those of us who run businesses or organisations of 50 staff will know that IT and security systems will essentially be back office and unsophisticated, as indeed is the case with the OBR. What are the lessons going forward on resourcing the OBR?

Secondly, this leak appears to be a technical systemic error—a serious one, yes, and naive, certainly, but not deliberate. If that is a resignation matter for the chairman, what does this mean for personnel in the Treasury and No. 11 who have been involved in deliberate and extensive pre-Budget briefings and operations?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

On the first question, the noble Lord is quite right to identify back-office systems as one of the issues identified by the report. He talks about systemic risk. We will look at wider questions of the systemic risk that this incident has uncovered, including the report’s conclusion that the OBR’s information security arrangements should have been regularly re-examined and assured by the management of the OBR.

His second question he expresses as fact. It is, of course, just an assertion. We take the Budget process very seriously and we put the utmost weight on Budget secrecy. As I have said, a leak inquiry is now under way with the full support of the Chancellor and the whole Treasury team. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury will also conduct a review of the Treasury security processes to inform future fiscal events.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, the situation with the OBR is clear. What is not clear is what the OBR told the Chancellor in respect of income tax receipts before her briefing statement. Should it not be the case that all information supplied by the OBR to the Chancellor is revealed in retrospect after the Budget speech?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not sure whether the noble Lord is saying that is his view or whether he thinks it should be the case. The Chancellor was aware of the letter that the OBR sent to the Treasury Select Committee. She was content for it to be published, and she agreed this with the Permanent Secretary. We put the utmost weight on Budget security. The OBR has chosen to publish some further information. That is set out fully in Richard Hughes’s letter to the Treasury Committee. We believe it is important to maintain a private space between the Treasury and the OBR for the exchange of forecast information and Budget policy development, so we welcome the OBR’s statement that this is not intended to become usual practice.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, over the last few weeks and today, the Minister has studiously avoided confirming that Ministers and officials briefed possible announcements in the Budget prior to the Budget occurring. Does he really deny that this occurred?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I have said before, we take the Budget process extremely seriously and we put the utmost weight on Budget secrecy. A leak inquiry is now under way with the full support of the Chancellor, and the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury will also conduct a review of the Treasury’s security processes to inform future fiscal events.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

With respect to the Minister, that is not an answer to the question. Will he confirm or deny?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I have said before, we take the Budget process very seriously and we put the utmost weight on Budget secrecy.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

How much stress does the Minister think should be put anyhow on forecasts of relatively small numbers that can turn out to be extremely wrong?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right about the outcome of certain forecasts. As I have said before, we remain committed to the independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility and its role at the heart of economic and fiscal policy-making. As I said in an answer to one of my noble friends, there is evidence that a greater level of independence creates greater levels of economic stability, and that can only be a good thing.

Autumn Budget 2025

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That this House takes note of the Autumn Budget 2025.

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

My Lords, it is a privilege to open this Budget debate in your Lordships’ House, and to speak alongside so many distinguished and expert noble Lords. I look forward to listening to, and learning from, all the contributions today. We should perhaps spare a thought for the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, who, as speaker number 72, has to try to find something new to say. I do not doubt that he will succeed.

I take this opportunity to welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth to your Lordships’ House. I very much look forward to his maiden speech.

Undeniably, this Budget has been dominated, even more than usual, by questions of process before, during and after it was delivered. There were months of speculation in advance. On the day of the Budget itself, the OBR made the serious error of releasing significant details before it was delivered and, shortly after the Budget, the OBR made the decision to publish the timeline of its forecasts. The OBR was clear in its evidence to the Treasury Select Committee this week that the Chancellor did not mislead, but I am sure that many noble Lords may, perfectly fairly, choose to focus on these questions today. In opening this debate, though, I will focus on the measures contained in this Budget and set them in the context of our wider strategy to build a stronger and more secure economy.

As noble Lords will know, we inherited an economy with serious flaws—with a crisis in our public services, a crisis in our public finances and a crisis in the cost of living. At the heart of this deep malaise had been a chronic lack of investment, both public and private, weighing down on growth and productivity. Private sector investment was the lowest in the G7, constrained by years of economic instability, a planning system that thwarted projects before they even began, a regulatory system tying businesses in red tape and a Brexit deal that cut Britain off from our largest market.

Public sector investment was no better and was even set to fall again, from 2.5% to 1.7% of GDP. That meant vital infrastructure projects constantly deferred, delayed or cancelled—roads, railways and energy projects that did not get built. Little wonder the IMF repeatedly warned that a lack of investment posed a major barrier to growth.

That is why, since day one in government, we have put increased investment at the heart of our growth strategy and made growth our number one priority. In our first Budget, last year, we changed the fiscal rules to enable and protect £120 billion of additional capital investment—the highest level in four decades—in housing, energy and transport: the infrastructure that Britain needs to grow. We have systematically begun to remove the barriers to investment faced by the private sector, with the biggest planning reforms in a generation; cutting the cost of regulation; investing in skills and apprenticeships, while reforming our visa system to attract the best global talent to Britain; pensions reform to release more capital for investment; and resetting our relationship with the EU.

All this and more is why, since the election, we have seen an additional £250 billion of private investment committed to the UK. It is why, in this Budget, the OBR upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year, from 1% to 1.5%. It is why we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year and are on course to be the second fastest for the year as a whole, and it is why, just this week, the OECD upgraded its prediction for Britain’s growth next year. But there is, clearly, much more to do.

Ahead of this Budget, the OBR looked back at the productivity performance of the previous decade and concluded that the chronically low levels of investment, together with the effects of Brexit and the pandemic, have weakened the economy by far more even than previously thought. This reappraisal of the productivity performance of the past has directly impacted its view of GDP going forward, driving lower growth forecasts for the remainder of the forecast period. The OBR has been clear that its review reflects not what this Government have done over the past 14 months but the legacy of the past 14 years. Nevertheless, it now falls to us to deal with the consequences.

This Budget continues that work, by taking three deliberate pro-growth choices. First, by choosing to maintain economic stability, getting inflation and interest rates down, we are giving businesses the confidence to invest and our economy the room to grow. Secondly, by choosing to reject austerity, we are protecting £120 billion of additional investment in growth-driving infrastructure. Thirdly, by choosing to back the fast-growing companies of the future, we are supporting the investment, innovation and economic dynamism that will increase growth in the next decade and beyond. Let me take each in turn.

The first pro-growth choice made by this Budget was to maintain economic stability. In the months leading up to the Budget, in countless conversations with business and investors, I heard repeatedly that the most important action the Government could take would be to reduce inflation, helping interest rates—already cut five times since the election—to continue to fall. A growing economy needs strong foundations of economic stability, with borrowing down, inflation down and investment up. So, because of this Budget, borrowing will fall as a share of GDP in every year of the forecast: from 4.5% in 2025-26 to 1.9% in 2030-31. Borrowing will fall more than in any other G7 economy. Net financial debt will be lower at the end of the forecast than it is today and the headroom against our stability rule will more than double to £21.7 billion.

The Budget also took more direct action to cut inflation. We have taken £150 off energy bills, frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years and extended the freeze on fuel duty. All these things together take 0.4% off inflation next year. To put that in context, it is the biggest near-term reduction in inflation due to government policy ever forecast by the OBR at a single fiscal event.

The second pro-growth choice the Budget made was to protect the £120 billion of additional capital investment that we have committed over the next five years, ruling out a return to the austerity of the past. The OBR has estimated the eventual long-term growth impact of this increase in capital investment as adding 1.4% to GDP. Cutting this and returning to austerity would be the worst thing we could do for growth—the very definition of short-termism. Yet that is precisely what previous Chancellors, with previous fiscal rules, have done.

In the years following the financial crisis, austerity took demand out of the economy when it was needed most, undermining investment in critical infrastructure, weakening productivity and choking off growth. Unlike today’s Conservative Party, we will not repeat the mistakes of the past: the exact mistakes that led to the productivity downgrade that we must now fix. Instead, our increased investment will deliver new roads, improved transport, new homes and new energy infrastructure. We are investing in the construction of Sizewell C. We are investing in the UK’s first small modular reactors at Wylfa and in the Lower Thames Crossing, the trans-Pennine route upgrade and Northern Powerhouse Rail.

The third pro-growth choice this Budget makes is to back the fastest-growing British companies of the future. The ScaleUp Institute described it as

“a budget for scaleups and those ambitious to scale”,

and it is right. The UK is a great place to start a business, but I have heard for too many years that our companies cannot scale at the same rate as their US peers. As a result, brilliant British businesses are either acquired, choose to go abroad to raise investment, or fail. We will change that. We will make the UK the best place to start, scale and stay, because we know that today’s fast-growing firms are tomorrow’s engine of jobs and growth.

By doubling the eligibility of our enterprise tax incentives, investing billions of pounds in research and development, and delivering reforms to boost the attractiveness of UK markets, we will ensure that these companies can access the capital and talent they need to succeed. For all businesses, large and small, we are maintaining the lowest headline corporation tax in the G7 and the most generous full plant and machinery capital allowances in the OECD. To incentivise private investment and encourage growth, we are also introducing a new 40% permanent first-year allowance for main-rate plant and machinery from July 2026.

In this Budget, we faced a choice: we could have made the reckless choice to abandon our fiscal rules and let borrowing and debt increase. Instead, we made the pro-growth choice to get borrowing, debt and inflation down, more than doubling our headroom. We could have made the irresponsible choice and returned to austerity, cutting public services and undermining capital investment. Instead, we made the pro-growth choice to protect the investment in Britain’s infrastructure to build a stronger, more secure economy, but these choices need to be paid for.

The previous Government froze personal tax thresholds from 2021 until 2028. This Budget maintains all income tax and equivalent national insurance thresholds at their current level for a further three years from 2028. I accept that maintaining these thresholds is a decision that will affect working people—the Chancellor said that last year; I said that last year, and I will not pretend otherwise now—but we have sought to keep their contribution as low as possible by making other fair and necessary reforms to the tax system.

A Blackpool terrace pays more council tax than a £10 million Westminster mansion, so we are introducing a high-value council tax surcharge on homes worth £2 million or more, while protecting those on low incomes. We are raising taxes on property, dividend and savings income, which currently face no equivalent of national insurance, by 2% at the basic and higher rates and by 2% at the additional rate for property and savings income. The cost of pension salary sacrifice was set to almost treble from £3 billion in 2017 to nearly £9 billion by the end of the decade, so we are capping the amount that can be salary-sacrificed into a pension without paying any employee or employer national insurance at £2,000, protecting low and middle earners while retaining in full pension tax relief worth over £70 billion a year.

Alongside this, we are making reforms so that our tax system keeps pace with a fast-changing economy by ensuring that motoring taxes cover electric vehicles via a new per mile levy; increasing taxes on online gaming and betting while protecting bingo halls and horseracing; and preventing some ride-sharing apps abusing a tax relief intended for coach tour operators to undercut black cabs. We are also supporting our high streets with permanently lower business rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, funded with higher rates for the most expensive properties, including warehouses used by online giants. These are fair choices, with increases in tax coming most from those households in the highest income decile. They are choices that underpin and enable our growth agenda of cutting borrowing and debt while refusing to cut investment.

On Monday, the Prime Minister set out the next phase of that growth strategy. First, we will reform the regulation of our nuclear industry to make it easier to invest and then extend that approach across our entire industrial strategy. Secondly, we will keep moving towards a closer trading relationship with the European Union. Thirdly, we will reform a failing welfare system. In the last five years of the previous Government, spending on welfare increased by £88 billion, yet we inherited a system where children could not afford to eat but taxpayers were asked to subsidise tax breaks on the lease of luxury cars. That is a broken system, and we are reforming it. Britain, one of the richest countries on earth, still has children growing up in poverty. A Labour Government will always fight the social injustice where children, through no fault of their own, go to bed hungry and cold, their life chances shrinking every day.

Poverty scars our society, but it scars our economy too. It drives down growth and productivity; it heaps pressure on already stretched public services. Children who grew up in poverty earn 25% less aged 30 than their peers. All this costs our economy an estimated £40 billion a year. I am proud to have worked for the previous Labour Government who cut child poverty by a million over a decade. I was angry when we had to watch the Conservative Government who succeeded us reverse all our progress and increase child poverty by 900,000, at terrible social and economic cost. Now, I am proud to be a member of a Government who, by scrapping the two-child limit, are lifting 450,000 children out of poverty in a single step. Combined with other steps we have already taken, including extending free school meals to more families, this Government will now be responsible for the largest reduction in child poverty ever achieved in a single Parliament.

I am proud too of what this Budget and this Chancellor have achieved: not just cutting child poverty but cutting energy bills by £150; cutting NHS waiting lists; cutting borrowing more than any other G7 country; cutting inflation; supporting further cuts to interest rates and rejecting austerity. These are the right choices for a stronger NHS, the right choices for investment, the right choices for business and for workers, and the right choices for Britain to continue building a stronger, more secure economy. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate on the Budget this evening. I have enjoyed listening to all 73 contributions from noble Lords today. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth on his excellent maiden speech. I very much look forward to his further contributions to this House. I was struck particularly by one thing he said,

“to find what is good and to strengthen it”.

That must be right. Having sat through the debate this evening, though, I am aware that opinions may differ on how well we are achieving that in this Budget.

It is a privilege to speak in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord True—I do not often have that pleasure. My noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lady Curran set out the record of the noble Lord’s Government that we inherited. The combined effect of austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss mini-Budget was devastating to the economy. Had the 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% and was above target for 33 months in a row. The UK had the lowest private investment levels in the whole of the G7. Productivity growth had entirely stalled, with output per worker growing more slowly than in nearly every other G7 country.

The need to deal with that inheritance is why we have made growth our number one priority. This Budget made pro-growth choices to get borrowing down, with increased headroom to cut the cost of living and get inflation down to support Britain’s fast-growing companies and, most of all, to protect the investment needed to support growth by avoiding a return to austerity. This is real substance, and these are real policies to get real growth and enable the British people to lead better lives in the years ahead.

As I said in opening the debate, this was a Budget dominated, even more so than usual, by process—before, during and after it was delivered. This was a point raised by the noble Lords, Lord True, Lord Rosenfield, Lord Kempsell, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Noakes and Lady Penn.

Let me address those directly. Let me be clear that the Chancellor was completely honest and consistent with the public in everything she said. Professor David Miles, the acting head of the OBR, in his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee on Tuesday, confirmed that what the Chancellor said before the Budget had not been misleading. The Chancellor said before the Budget that her priorities were cutting the cost of living, NHS waiting lists, debt and borrowing. The Budget delivered on all those priorities.

The Chancellor was clear that a productivity review would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed they were £16 million lower. The Chancellor said she intended to build more headroom; she built more headroom to £21.7 billion. The Chancellor was clear in the summer that policy choices would need to be paid for. The Budget shows that those cost £6.9 billion. The Chancellor was clear that challenging decisions would be needed on tax and spending, and she froze thresholds for a further three years.

Let me be clear too that the Government are committed to the independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility and its role at the heart of economic and fiscal policy-making. The strength of that institution is a vital pillar in the Government’s commitment to economic stability. As noble Lords know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rosenfield, for example, commented, the economic and fiscal outlook was accessed prematurely ahead of the Budget. That was a very serious leak of highly sensitive information. The OBR took full responsibility for this and conducted a review into what happened.

That report was published on Monday. Following that publication, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, Richard Hughes, the chair of the OBR, resigned. The Chancellor has written to Mr Hughes to thank him for his many years of public service. I have previously put my own thanks on record in your Lordships’ House. That decision was a matter for Mr Hughes. The suggestion otherwise from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is categorically untrue. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, spoke rightly about future appointments being subject to approval by the Treasury Select Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, criticised the impact of pre-Budget speculation, as did the noble Lords, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court and Lord True, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Penn. Let me say clearly that we take the Budget process very seriously, and we put the utmost weight on Budget secrecy. As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, a leak inquiry is now under way into the FT reporting on the 13 November, with the full support of the Chancellor and the whole Treasury team.

The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, spoke about learning lessons. The Permanent Secretary to the Treasury will now conduct a review of the Treasury security processes to inform future fiscal events. We will also work closely with the OBR to ensure that robust security arrangements are in place before the spring forecast and for all future forecasts. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, asked about the arrangements for the Spring Statement. As the Chancellor said in the Budget, to support just one fiscal event a year the OBR will not assess the margin against the fiscal rules in the spring and the Government will not make a fiscal response.

The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, asked whether the Treasury still accepts his recommendations from 2013. The answer is yes, and I can tell him that the current Permanent Secretary to the Treasury referred to that review in an email he sent to all Treasury staff.

The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, spoke about the productivity puzzle. Much of the context of this Budget was the OBR supply-side review, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Bridges of Headley, and my noble friend Lord Hollick. The OBR looked back at the productivity performance of the previous decade and concluded that the chronically low levels of investment, together with the effects of Brexit and the pandemic, have weakened the economy by far more even than previously thought. This reappraisal of the productivity performance of the past has directly impacted its view of GDP going forward, driving lower growth forecasts for the remainder of the forecast period. The noble Lord, Lord True, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Moyo, noted its impact on future growth forecasts. But they all ignored the fact that it was the verdict on the previous 14 years, not the previous 14 months.

This review has had both a fiscal and a growth impact. In terms of fiscal policy, because of this Budget, borrowing will fall as a share of GDP in every year of the forecast, from 4.5% in 2025-26 to 1.9% in 2030-31. Borrowing will fall more quickly than in any other G7 economy. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, said, net financial debt will be lower at the end of this forecast than it is today. The headroom against our stability rule will more than double to £21.7 billion—this was supported, I think, by the noble Lords, Lord Lamont, Lord Willetts and Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, and my noble friends Lord Wood of Anfield and Lord Hollick.

The Budget also took more direct action to cut inflation. We have taken £150 off energy bills, frozen rail fares for the first time in 30 years and extended the freeze on fuel duty. All these things together take 0.4% off inflation. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, to put that in context, it is the biggest near-term reduction in inflation due to government policy ever forecast by the OBR at a single fiscal event.

Some noble Lords said consolidation was back-loaded, including the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, and the noble Lords, Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court and Lord True. I do not accept that. In the Budget, we doubled the headroom to the stability rule to £21.7 billion. We have also set out a credible and front-loaded consolidation plan that is working. Borrowing this year is set to be the lowest for six years and falls in every year of the forecast, from 4.5% of GDP this year to 3% of GDP in 2027-28, and to 1.9% in 2030-31. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, we will deliver a further £2.8 billion in efficiencies and savings in 2028-29, rising to £5 billion in 2030, on top of almost £14 billion announced at the spending review.

My noble friend Lord Sikka spoke about the distributional impact of this Budget. The Government’s distributional analysis shows tax, welfare and public service spending decisions taken from the autumn Budget 2024 onwards are progressive and benefit households in the lowest income deciles the most. The increases in tax are concentrated on the highest-income households. On average, all but the richest 10% of households will benefit from policy decisions in 2028-29.

The right reverend Prelate spoke passionately about children with special educational needs, joined by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Noakes and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and Lord True. We know and have long said that the system is in need of reform to, first and foremost, support children and families effectively. The OBR has based its estimate on unreformed pressures. It has not accounted for planned reforms to deliver a sustainable SEND system that works better for children and families. The detail of this will be set out in our reform plan early in the new year. The OBR has only used mainstream schools as an indicative example, whereas the Government have confirmed that residual SEND pressures will be absorbed within the overall Government DEL budget from 2028-29 onwards. The Government will not make final decisions until reform plans are confirmed and Budgets from 2028-29 onwards remain subject to the spending review in 2027.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about defence spending. The UK will spend 2.6% of GDP on defence spending by April 2027. The Government have set an ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament, when economic and fiscal conditions allow. Changes to the defence spending envelope will be considered at the next spending review in 2027.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke about the creative industries, and I agree with him on their importance to the economy. We have made creative industries central to our industrial strategy and he is right that the new discretionary power to introduce a visitor levy would allow local leaders to drive growth in their regions.

Turning now to growth, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about the importance that we place on growth. It is without question our number one priority. My noble friends Lord Barber of Ainsdale and Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town said that, in this Budget, the OBR upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year from 1% to 1.5%. We were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year and we are on course to be the second-fastest for the year as a whole. Just this week, the OECD upgraded its prediction for Britain’s growth next year. Just last week, following the Budget, JPMorgan announced a $10 billion investment in Britain to build its new landmark tower in Canary Wharf. CEO and chair Jamie Dimon said:

“The UK government’s priority of economic growth has been a critical factor in helping us make this decision”.


Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, called for, my noble friend Lord Hollick spoke about the importance of protecting the additional capital spending that we have allocated to the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said that the previous Government had to deal with the aftermath of the financial crisis. Of course he is right, but I would contend that they did so in exactly the wrong way, by taking demand out of the economy at exactly the worst moment. The very worst thing that we could do now for growth would be to follow the Conservative Party recommendation and return to austerity, cutting investment just as previous Chancellors with previous fiscal rules have done. We will not repeat those mistakes of the past: the exact mistakes that led to the productivity downgrade that we must now fix.

This Government are committed to delivering growth in every nation and region of the UK. My noble friend Lady Griffin of Princethorpe specifically spoke about growth between northern city regions, and I absolutely agree with her. It is precisely why we have committed to the northern growth corridor, including Northern Powerhouse Rail, to boost connectivity and access to markets across the north. More widely, this Budget transfers significant new fiscal powers into the hands of local leaders.

The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, spoke about the importance to growth of moving closer to the European Union. As they know, I agree. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, also supported this point, as did my noble friend Lord Brooke. The Prime Minister said the same in his speech on Monday this week.

The noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, and the noble Lord, Lord Harrington of Watford, are right to say that there is much more to do elsewhere, and they rightly identified the importance of reducing energy costs for businesses, which must of course be a priority.

My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe spoke about housing and asked specifically about social rent convergence. The Government remain committed to implementing social rent convergence, but we must take the time to get the details right and take into account the benefits to the supply and quality of social affordable housing, the impact on rent payers and affordability. We will respond to the consultation on this issue in full and announce a decision about how social rent convergence will be implemented in January. My noble friend also asked about supported housing; as she mentioned, the Government will shortly publish a new cross-government homelessness strategy. I cannot speculate on the contents of that right now, but we will be working closely with mayors and local councils to get us back on track to ending homelessness.

My noble friend Lady Thornton raised co-operatives. The Government are progressing a number of measures to support the growth of the mutual sector, including modernising the Building Societies Act. We have endorsed the industry-led Mutual and Co-operative Sector Business Council, and the Department for Business and Trade has announced a call for evidence, which will explore business support for co-operatives.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Razzall, spoke about the importance of small businesses. I agree with all of them on the importance of small businesses to the economy. As my noble friend Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill said, for small and medium-sized businesses the Budget supports high streets, with permanently lower tax rates for 750,000 retail and hospitality properties. It backs entrepreneurs by doubling eligibility for tax breaks that make it easier for fast-growing start-ups to scale and stay in the UK, makes the training for under-25 apprenticeships completely free for SMEs, and maintains the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Razzall, spoke specifically about pubs. Most pubs are protected by a £4.3 billion business rate support package, capping bills and saving a typical independent pub £4,800 next year, compared to what it would pay without intervention. The Government have also cut the business rates tax rate paid by small retail, hospitality and leisure properties to the lowest level since 1990-91.

My noble friends Lord Hollick and Lady Curran mentioned the importance of apprenticeships, particularly given the infrastructure commitments that we have made—a point also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harrington, and I pay tribute to his work at Make UK. The Government are making more than £1.5 billion available over the spending review period for investment in employment and skills support. This includes £725 million for the growth and skills levy, to help support apprenticeships for young people and fully fund SME apprenticeships for under-25s. We will also introduce new reforms to simplify the apprenticeship system and make it more efficient when short courses are introduced from April 2026.

My noble friend Lady Curran spoke about the importance of growth in Scotland, and I will of course look carefully at the report she mentions. The Budget invests in Scotland’s economic potential, supporting Scotland’s energy industry, driving up economic growth across Scotland and investing in the important projects that she mentioned.

My noble friend Lord Jones of Penybont, who is far more expert in this matter than I am, spoke about the importance of growth in Wales. As he said, we are supporting the Wales energy industry by announcing that Wylfa will pioneer the UK’s first small modular reactor, supporting up to 3,000 jobs. We are also investing to deliver growth in Wales by establishing AI growth zones in north and south Wales, each backed with £5 million investment in local AI adoption and skills.

I turn to tax, which of course so many noble Lords mentioned in the debate. We faced a choice at the Budget. We could have made the reckless choice to abandon our fiscal rules and let borrowing and debt increase, but instead we made the pro-growth choice to get borrowing, debt and inflation down, more than doubling our headroom. We could have made the irresponsible choice and returned to austerity, cutting public services and undermining capital investment. Instead, we made the pro-growth choice to protect the investment in Britain’s infrastructure to build a stronger and more secure economy. But, as I said at the outset, these choices do need to be paid for.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised the impact of that on working people, as did several other noble Lords during the course of this debate. The Chancellor made very clear in her Budget how much maintaining the tax thresholds at their current level would impact working people. We have sought to minimise this by establishing certain other necessary tax reforms.

Several noble Lords touched on the subject of tax reform, including initially the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who was supported by my noble friends Lord Wood of Anfield, Lord Eatwell and Lord Hollick. I recognise that perhaps this Budget has not gone as far as they would have liked, but we have made a start on reforming some important tax reliefs within the system.

My noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton asked about the impact of tax thresholds on pensioners paying tax on their state pension. We gave a clear commitment to this in the Budget. We are now exploring the best way to achieve it and will set out more detail early next year.

My noble friend Lady Thornton raised the impact of the Budget on women. Increases in the national minimum wage, for example, will benefit women more. To answer her specific point, alongside the Finance Bill, impact assessments will be published in relation to each individual measure and their impacts on women.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours spoke about the high value council tax surcharge, a point which was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. The Valuation Office will identify homes which will need to pay the surcharge through a targeted revaluation. The new charge will ensure that those with the most valuable properties pay their fair share.

Several noble Lords mentioned the impact of salary sacrifice measures, including my noble friend Lord Hollick and the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, who expressed some concern about it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton that the measures are proportionate. The Government rightly provide generous tax relief for people paying into a pension, relieving income tax on all contributions. This Budget makes no changes to those reliefs or to the tax-free lump sum. Salary sacrifice for pensions, which was intended to be a small part of our pensions system, is now forecast to nearly treble in cost from under £3 billion to £8 billion in 2030, with the most benefit going to higher earners.

The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, spoke about non-dom reforms. I have justified this policy in the past, so I will not do so again now.

I was pleased to see the issue about low-value imports that the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, has campaigned on for so long make progress. I know he expressed concern about how long this is taking. We will do what we can to speed up the implementation of the reforms, for which the noble Lord has called.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, spoke expertly about electric VED. I believe I was correct in saying that we are not introducing road pricing, since electric VED does not mean that motorists will be charged based on when or where they drive, nor will there be any new national charges to drive on specific roads. Electric VED only requires a vehicle’s mileage to be estimated.

I am grateful to several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Massey of Hampstead, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for their support for the further scale-up measures that we introduced as well as for expanding the enterprise management incentives, the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust investment limits. I will happily take away the suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as to how we might go further in that regard.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Stansgate for what he said in support of the measures to help ensure that the fastest-growing businesses in our country start, scale and stay, particularly by backing breakthrough technologies and regional clusters with £7 billion of UKRI funding and a new £130 million growth catalyst fund to help frontier firms scale.

I agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, spoke so passionately about on the need for procurement reforms.

The noble Lords, Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Bridges of Headley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, spoke about the impact on living standards. As they will know, real household disposable income fell by 1.8% in the last Parliament, making it the only Parliament since records began in which living standards fell. This fall has already been reversed. RHDI per capita was £800 higher in the first year of this Parliament compared with the final year of the previous Parliament. The OBR forecasts growth to continue, with RHDI per capita projected to grow by 2.9% over this Parliament. It also forecasts that, as a result of the action taken by this Government, RHDI per capita will grow by a further 0.2 percentage points in 2026-27.

Many noble Lords spoke about the importance of tackling welfare reform, including the noble Lords, Lord Burns, Lord Willetts, Lord de Clifford, Lord Saatchi and Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. Last year, we delivered the largest fraud and error package in recent history, saving £4.3 billion in 2029-30. This Budget goes further to ensure that our welfare system is sustainable for the long term. It increases face-to-face assessments for health benefits and offers 18 to 21 year-olds who have been on universal credit and looking for work for 18 months paying work, instead of benefits. It ensures that people living abroad can no longer buy a state pension on the cheap and reforms the Motability scheme’s tax reliefs, saving the taxpayer over £1 billion across five years.

Our new youth guarantee will also offer 18 to 20 year-olds paid work rather than benefits and we will examine extending it, as my noble friend Lord Rook asked. We recognise the need to do more, which is why the Government will continue to look at other reforms, including through the Timms review, the Milburn review and the Pensions Commission.

As my noble friend Lord Rook said, we have raised taxes on gambling companies and launched a crackdown on tax evasion to pay for the scrapping of the two-child limit. I am still amazed that the party opposite opposed these measures, when three-quarters of households impacted by this change have at least one parent or carer in work. Reducing child poverty is not only a moral imperative but an investment in the country’s future. Under the Conservatives, child poverty rose by 900,000, yet they still oppose the action we are taking to tackle child poverty.

The cost to the economy of child poverty is some £40 billion a year. It damages the life chances of the children affected and it hits growth, because children who grow up in poverty earn 25% less aged 30 than those who do not. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth described how 50% of children in one of his wards live in poverty. Removing the two-child limit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty in the final year of this Parliament, yet the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on behalf of the Official Opposition, opposed it. When combined with other measures announced this year, it will lift around 550,000 children out of poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about this measurement: it is relative child poverty after housing costs.

The noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke rightly about the intergenerational nature of poverty and said that we should prevent poverty in the first place. Child poverty makes it harder for children to get on in life and it hurts our economy in the long term. Reducing child poverty will help to increase educational outcomes and attainment, and therefore improve economic outcomes.

Finally, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley also spoke passionately about carers. As my noble friend said, 26,000 carers will now have their overpayment debt written off or reimbursed.

We will continue to rebuild the economy after 14 years of failure from the party opposite. Where they delivered the slowest projected growth in the G7, our growth in the first half of this year was the fastest in the G7. Where they presided over the worst Parliament ever for living standards, living standards have already increased by 2.1% since the election. Where they oversaw the worst pay growth in a century, real wages grew more in the first 10 months of this Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Government, and where they continually cut capital spending and deterred investment, we are investing for the long term, with £120 billion extra over the next five years.

Now, in this Budget, we are going further: not just cutting child poverty but cutting energy bills by £150; cutting NHS waiting lists; cutting borrowing faster than any other G7 country; cutting inflation and supporting further cuts in interest rates. This is a Budget that rejects austerity, a Budget for a stronger, more secure economy, and a Budget for a Britain built for all.

Motion agreed.

OBR Forecasts

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement on the OBR forecasting process made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement to the House on two separate but related matters. The first is regarding communication with the public in the lead-up to the Budget. I understand that this is a topic that has held much interest and speculation over the weekend and I would like to take this opportunity to give a formal Statement to the House on the Government’s position. However, the Government have also today received the results of the OBR’s investigation into the early release of the Economic and Fiscal Outlook at the Budget last week. I know that the House will be concerned to understand those findings, so the majority of my Statement will be concerned with this latter point.

On the former point, the Chancellor has been entirely consistent and honest with the public about her considerations in the lead-up to the Budget last week. First, she was clear on her priorities for the Budget on 4 November: cutting NHS waiting lists, cutting the cost of living, and cutting our debt and borrowing. The Budget she delivered last week delivered on all three of those priorities. Secondly, she was clear on 4 November that a lower productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed at the Budget that tax receipts are £16 billion lower as a result of its reduced productivity forecast.

Thirdly, the Chancellor was clear on 4 November that she intended to build more headroom. She has done that, with headroom against the stability rule of £21.7 billion. Fourthly, she was clear in the summer that the policy decisions we took on welfare would need to be paid for at the Budget, and the Budget document shows those decisions costing £6.9 billion in 2029-30. Finally, the OBR has now confirmed that the Chancellor knew on 4 November that she had only £4.2 billion of headroom against her fiscal rules, meaning that once the cost of those policy decisions was accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion against the stability rule.

The combined effect of this information is this: on 4 November, the Chancellor knew that the Government would be in deficit against the stability rule before any of this Government’s priorities for the Budget had been delivered or any additional headroom had been built. In the light of this information, and in the knowledge of the OBR’s productivity downgrade, the Chancellor knew on 4 November that challenging decisions would be required on tax and spend. The subsequent decision to freeze personal tax thresholds for a further three years shows that this was completely correct.

The Chancellor took the unique step of delivering that scene-setter speech before the Budget, precisely so that she could be honest about the circumstances that she was facing and the decisions she would need to take. The Chancellor has been completely honest and consistent with the public in everything that she has said.

I turn now to my second topic. Last Wednesday, before the Chancellor had begun to give her Budget speech, the Office for Budget Responsibility published its entire Economic and Fiscal Outlook November 2025 online. Let me be clear: this is a very serious breach of highly sensitive information. It is a fundamental breach of the OBR’s responsibility, it is a discourtesy to this House, and it should never have happened. The OBR rightly took full responsibility and issued an apology to the Chancellor later that day. It has now conducted an investigation into how the report was published prematurely, and it sent its report, including its findings, to the Treasury and the Treasury Select Committee today at 12.30 pm.

The report states:

‘We are in no doubt that this failure to protect information prior to publication has inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation. It is the worst failure in the 15-year history of the OBR’.


It adds:

‘The ultimate responsibility for the circumstances in which this vulnerability occurred and was then exposed rests, over the years, with the leadership of the OBR’.


The report notes that this has

‘inflicted heavy damage on the OBR’s reputation’,

and caused significant disruption on Budget Day ‘to the Chancellor’s disadvantage’. I can confirm to the House that the report goes on to make it clear that this is a significant and long-standing issue that has allowed external users to gain early access to the OBR’s publication, which contains full details of its forecasts and the Chancellor’s Budget.

In the days since the Budget, there has been speculation about the kind of error that led to the Economic and Fiscal Outlook November 2025 being published early. The report today confirms that the cause was not

‘simply a matter of pressing the publication button on a locally managed website too early’.

The report concludes that the cause of the OBR’s error was ‘systemic issues’, and that the investigation has made it clear that

‘the problem exposed last week was not a new one’.

Indeed, I can confirm to the House that the report reveals that the OBR’s EFO in March was accessed before the Chancellor delivered the Spring Statement to the House. That underlines just how serious a situation this is. Let me underline just how seriously we as a Government take it to ensure the OBR never allows this to happen again.

The report notes that common and fairly basic protections to prevent early access, including passwords and random character URLs, were not used. It further notes that two configuration errors, which were not understood by the OBR’s online publishing function, prevented the safeguards in its online publishing software being effective.

However, I am very concerned to share that the report also notes that

‘it is very likely that the weaknesses that caused the premature accessing of the November 2025 EFO were pre-existing. Indeed, it appears that the March 2025 EFO was accessed prematurely’.

These findings are very serious indeed. That market-sensitive information was prematurely accessible to a small group of market participants is extremely concerning; that it might have been the case on more than one occasion is even more severe. We do not at this stage know the extent to which market behaviour may have been affected on this or other occasions as a result of information being available early.

I want to share one further piece of information from the report with the House today. On the morning of the Budget, the first IP address to successfully access the economic and fiscal outlook had made 32 prior attempts on the day, starting around 5 am. Such a volume of requests implies that the person attempting to access the document had every confidence that persistence would lead to success at some point. This unfortunately leads us to consider whether the reason they tried so persistently to access the economic and fiscal outlook is because they had been successful at a previous fiscal event. At this time, we do not have answers to all these questions, but I can confirm that the Treasury will make contact with previous Chancellors to make them aware of developments that relate to previous fiscal events. The OBR has rightly conducted its initial investigation as quickly as possible, and it is right that both the Government and the Treasury Select Committee now take time to consider the report and its findings. The Treasury Committee will have the opportunity to carefully question the OBR tomorrow at its post-Budget hearing.

Furthermore, in response to the recommendation in paragraph 3.4 that the problem exposed last week was not a new one, I can confirm to the House that the Government will work in conjunction with the National Cyber Security Centre to take forward the recommendation that a forensic examination of other fiscal events is carried out, although let me specifically note to the House that the report finds no evidence of hostile cyber activity. In addition, the report says that the OBR

‘could not, in the time available, carry out deeper forensic examination of other recent EFO events and we recommend that such an exercise is, with expert support, now urgently carried out’.

We will make sure that work is carried out urgently. We will look at wider questions of the systemic risk that this incident has uncovered, including the report’s conclusion that the OBR’s information security arrangements

‘should have been regularly re-examined and assured by the management of the OBR’.

This Government are committed to the independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility and its role at the heart of economic and fiscal policy-making. The strength of that institution is a vital pillar in the Government’s economic and fiscal policy-making, and we will respond to this matter with the seriousness it demands”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this really has been a bit of an omnishambles with announcements, scene-setting musings, U-turns, misstatements and leaks—speculation that, for a time at least, spooked the markets, raising interest rates on government debt and causing such uncertainty that businesses and individuals delayed or abandoned decisions. We in this House have felt for the Minister, who has tried to hold the line by refusing to speculate despite being inveigled by pretty much all of us to try to make him do so. Frankly, all around him, others were simply flying kites.

On the issue of the OBR, Richard Hughes has taken the honourable step of resigning. Like others, I agree that he is very much the embodiment of a dedicated civil servant and has contributed much to the economic welfare of this country. Can the Government tell us, now that they recognise the seriousness of the breach, whether it is possible that attempts to access this information actually rise to the level of criminality? Are we looking at a possible issue around that? Also, is the security review being extended to other entities at arm’s length from the Government that might also have significant information but not the security that is necessary?

On the Chancellor, we need to understand much better why statements about tax receipts were omitted from the discussion on 4 November. This sits within the context of the omnishambles that I described. I am very concerned, for the future, that this form of extreme kite-flying—not just on this Budget; we have certainly seen it on earlier Budgets—has become so normalised that it has, in effect, killed off purdah. I am not sure that that is good for either the economy or how the markets behave.

In that case, will the Government recognise that they need to overhaul the whole Budget process? In the Swedish example, the Parliament gets to debate the Government’s Budget before it is set in stone, to propose alternatives and to make amendments; that is then followed by a period of scrutiny and accountability. Will the Government now bring forward a new approach to this process—one that enhances accuracy and transparency and properly restores both public trust and the role of Parliament?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses for their contributions and questions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, began by paying tribute to Richard Hughes, his actions today and his record of public service. I was very fortunate to work with him while I was a special adviser in the Treasury; he was my private secretary while I was a special adviser. I absolutely know what the noble Baroness said about his commitment to public service, so I join her in those words. The Chancellor said earlier today:

“I want to thank Richard Hughes for his public service and for leading the Office for Budget Responsibility over the past five years and for his many years of public service”.


This Government are committed to protecting the independence of the OBR and the integrity of our fiscal frameworks and institutions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about misleading. I fundamentally reject that. The Chancellor has been completely honest and consistent with the public in everything she has said. On 4 November, the Chancellor said that her priorities were cutting the cost of living, NHS waiting lists, debt and borrowing. The Budget delivered precisely on those priorities. The Chancellor was clear that, if there were a productivity downgrade, that would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed that tax receipts are £16 billion lower than they otherwise would have been. The Chancellor said that she intended to build more headroom, and she did—to £21.7 billion. The Chancellor was clear that policy choices would need to be paid for; the Budget shows that those cost £6.9 billion. The Chancellor was clear that challenging decisions would need to be taken on taxation and spending, and she froze thresholds for a further three years. So, as I say, the Chancellor was completely honest and consistent with the public in everything she said.

I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke of a “supposed” productivity collapse, as if she were trying to make light of the fact that the OBR looked back at the past 14 years and revised its view of what the previous Government had done to the economy downwards. It looked at the chronic lack of investment, Brexit, the mini-Budget and all of the other things the previous Government had done, and it was forced to downgrade productivity—the performance of the economy—as a result. It put that forward and said that that did lasting damage to the economy. The noble Baroness described that as “supposed”, so I would like her to acknowledge that that was real and has real, lasting consequences.

The noble Baroness also said that public finances had “improved”. I do not understand how going from a headroom of £9.9 billion at the Spring Statement to a headroom of £4.2 billion before any measures were taken into account is an improvement in the public finances. It is important to point that out.

The noble Baroness said that there is no “fiscal logic” to this Budget. Is she saying, therefore, that she thinks that the headroom of £4.2 billion is sufficient? Is she saying that, if the Chancellor had come before Parliament and announced £4.2 billion of headroom, that would have been an acceptable level of headroom, given the global uncertainty that we face? So, no—there was very clear fiscal logic to this Budget.

The noble Baroness asked me three specific questions. Did the Chancellor know that there was a £4.2 billion surplus on 4 November? Yes, she did. On 4 November, the Chancellor had £4.2 billion of headroom before those policy choices were accounted for, meaning that, once those policy choices were accounted for, there would be a deficit of £2.7 billion before any additional headroom was built. The Chancellor was extremely clear that she intended to build more headroom. The noble Baroness also asked: if the Chancellor wanted more headroom, why did she not say so? I suggest that the noble Baroness goes back and reads her speech from 4 November, because she specifically said that she wanted to build more headroom to create a greater margin against events. The noble Baroness also asked me about the FCA but, frankly, that is a matter for the FCA to decide.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments. She said that this Budget process had perhaps been dominated by more process questions than normal. I totally agree with her; it has been dominated by process before, during and after the Budget speech. I have some sympathy with her pleas for a return to purdah; it would certainly make my life more easy, and would have made life easier for me in the run-up to the Budget. She also praised Richard Hughes for his record of public service; I entirely agree with her.

The noble Baroness asked whether the contents of this review rise to the level of criminality. As the Statement that my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary gave in the other place says, we have only just received this report; we and the Treasury Committee should take time to consider it.

The noble Baroness gave some suggestions about how other countries run Budget processes. I am not sure that we will be reforming the process to quite that extent, but I have full sympathy with what she says. It is important that we take the Budget process and Budget secrecy extremely seriously—and we do.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, this is the second fantasy black hole of this Government. The first did not actually matter because absolutely nobody believed it. No credible economist believed it; I challenge noble Lords to name one who did. However, the second fantasy black hole does matter, because we were all sucked into it to the point where people like me—and, indeed, including me—took financial actions and decisions based on that speech of 4 November. These were irreversible financial decisions based on the words of the British Chancellor. Frankly, like Chris Mason of the BBC, no less, we feel misled. The Chancellor knew that tax receipts were higher than the rest of us knew. This means that people can no longer trust this Chancellor. We cannot believe any of her future statements. If that is the case, does the Minister, who has our confidence and credibility, not agree with me that she surely cannot remain as Chancellor?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind words about me, and I am grateful that I have his full confidence. Do I agree with what he says about the Chancellor? It will not surprise him to hear that, no, I do not. The Chancellor has been completely honest and consistent with the public in everything she has said.

The noble Lord says that no one believed the £22 billion black hole. It may be living rent-free in his head, because he has mentioned it probably more times than anyone other than me in this House, so, on that measure alone, it has been extremely successful.

The noble Lord said that he feels misled. I am sorry about that, but the Chancellor said absolutely nothing misleading. As I say, she has been completely honest and consistent. She set out in advance what her priorities were, and she delivered on those priorities. She set out in advance that a productivity downgrade would mean lower tax receipts, and it did mean £16 billion lower tax receipts. She said that she intended to build more headroom, and she built more headroom—to £21.7 billion. She was clear in the summer that policy choices would need to be paid for, and the Budget shows that those policy choices cost £6.9 billion. She said that challenging decisions would be needed on tax and spending, and she froze thresholds for a further three years, among other taxation decisions. So, as I say, she was entirely consistent in what she said before and what she did in the Budget.

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords, the Opposition suggested that markets were misled. Does the Minister agree that, if markets had been misled by the Chancellor’s speech on 4 November, there would have been a sharp market reaction when the truth was revealed in the Budget? But quite contrary to the erroneous statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, there was no sharp reaction. Indeed, the markets after the Budget displayed a similar rate of return on 10-year bonds as they did immediately after the speech on 4 November. There was no significant change because they were not misled. The fiscal balance in both cases was roughly the same. Do these erroneous statements not suggest that the Chancellor’s critics have a lamentable lack of understanding of how the financial markets actually work?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said. Obviously, I cannot comment on any specific market movements or lack thereof, but he is absolutely correct that no one at any point was misled. The Chancellor was honest and consistent with the public in everything that she said. My noble friend is absolutely right about the positive market reception to this Budget because we have put fiscal responsibility at the heart of it. We have reduced borrowing every single year of the forecast. We are reducing borrowing further than any other G7 country and net financial liabilities are lower at the end of this forecast period than the beginning. As I said, this is completely consistent with what the Chancellor set out at the start of this process—that she wanted to see debt and borrowing fall as a result of the Budget.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that the real flaw in all this debate is putting such importance on such tiny movements in forecasts? The OBR itself admits that its forecasts tend to overestimate GDP growth and productivity. The reliance on these figures on such short-term movements is utterly crazy when something such as the student loan book stands at nearly £300 billion. Could the Minister tell us what sort of a shortfall he expects to come out of that in the end?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I have some sympathy for the premise behind the noble Baroness’s question. That is why it is important that in this Budget we rebuilt headroom. The Chancellor said at the start of this process, in her speech on 4 November, that she wanted to build greater resilience against global shocks and the kinds of events we are seeing around the world. That is why she built more headroom in the Budget, to £21.7 billion. That provides a greater cushion, for the exact reasons the noble Baroness is saying. The noble Baroness said that the OBR tends to overestimate GDP growth. Obviously, this year it underestimated it, because we beat the forecast for this year. It estimated that growth would be 1% but it turned out to be 1.5%. We were the fastest growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year and we are on course to be the second fastest for the year as a whole. That is an achievement. She spoke about overestimating productivity, and she is absolutely correct on that. Productivity was downgraded because of the abysmal record of the party opposite over 14 years.

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, I take very much on board what the Minister has said about the Chancellor’s announcement that she wanted to increase and improve the headroom. I have been thinking about why the one thing she did not disclose at the time was the extra tax receipts. I suspect the Minister will say he is not prepared to answer this, but I will ask him. Would he accept that it is quite difficult for any Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase headroom when the pressures come? If you are a Tory Chancellor, they come from everybody sitting over there who wants to reduce taxes; if you are a Labour Chancellor, they come from everybody over there who wants to improve public services. Would he accept the possibility that the reason the Chancellor kept this to herself was in order to be able to increase the headroom without those pressures?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I definitely agree with the middle part of the noble Lord’s question on the importance of fiscal responsibility to securing the objectives that we want to see. The best way to provide more money for public services is to reduce the amount we are paying on debt interest; fiscal responsibility is vital to that. As I have said, we are cutting borrowing in every year of this forecast. We are cutting borrowing faster than any other G7 country and we have doubled the amount of headroom. That all helps to support the amount that we pay on debt interest coming down. That gives us more money to spend on the priorities that we all want to see: improving living standards, cutting NHS waiting lists and having more money to fund the public services. Fiscal responsibility is completely consistent with the objectives of this party in funding public services and improving living standards.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, please allow me to quote the former chair of the OBR on the black hole that the Minister has now referenced over 50 times at the Dispatch Box:

“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion”.


Last week, the OBR said that:

“At no point in our pre-measures forecast process were either of the Government’s fiscal targets missed by more than £2.5bn”.


Why are the Government saying something completely different from the OBR?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for pointing out my message discipline at this Dispatch Box. I am proud to have mentioned that £22 billion black hole over 50 times. The two noble Lords sitting next to each other are the other two Members of this House who have mentioned it almost as many times as I have. I think every time the noble Earl has made reference to the £22 billion black hole, I have pointed out to him that the OBR review ran up to six months before the end of the previous Government’s time in office. It identified a black hole and then the party opposite had another six months to continue adding to that hole and to continue to conceal it from the OBR. The OBR says in terms that it was concealed from it. That is a very serious charge.

Regarding what the OBR says about headroom, as I said, on 4 November, the Chancellor had £4.2 billion of headroom before any policy choices we had already announced were accounted for. Once those policy choices were accounted for, she would have a deficit of £2.7 billion. I do not think that anyone on the opposite side of the House thinks that going to the country with a £2.7 billion deficit rather than any headroom would be a fiscally responsible thing to do, given how uncertain the world around us is. It is absolutely right that we increased headroom to £21.7 billion.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I add my praise for Richard Hughes and his outstanding public service, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the Minister and others. I have two questions for the Minister about the Treasury-OBR relationship going forward, learning the lessons from what has happened.

First, the Treasury was clearly very annoyed by the OBR’s letter to the Treasury Select Committee, detailing the timeline of discussions. Is it the Minister’s understanding that there is a strong Treasury preference that the OBR does not do that in future? I think I know the answer, but how important is that to the Treasury-OBR relationship? Secondly, the Minister has rightly talked about defending the independence and continued existence of the OBR, but is there now discussion about changing its remit and role in the process, in the light of what has happened in the past few weeks?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the points and questions he raises. I had the great privilege of working with him in the Treasury at a time when Richard Hughes was working for us, so we both know the commitment that Richard Hughes has to public service.

My noble friend asked about the relationship with the OBR. I start by saying how strongly we support the Office for Budget Responsibility and its ongoing independence. The first piece of legislation passed by this Government after winning the election was to strengthen the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility, because we had seen, during the Liz Truss mini-Budget, what happens when it is cut out of the process. We saw how damaging that is to the living standards of working people and we are determined that that never happens again. We have absolute commitment to the ongoing independence of the Office for Budget Responsibility.

My noble friend asked about the letter from the OBR to the Treasury Select Committee. We put the utmost weight on Budget security. The OBR chose to publish some further information, which is set out fully in Richard Hughes’s letter to the Treasury Committee. The Treasury agreed in advance to its publication. However, it is important to maintain a private space between the Treasury and the OBR for the exchange of forecast information and Budget policy development, so we welcome the OBR’s statement that this is not intended to become usual practice.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to get a copy of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s Statement. He paints a chronology of events and how they happened, regardless of any speculation about this. For me, what is important is that he says that the Chancellor

“was clear on 4 November that a lower productivity forecast would mean lower tax receipts. The OBR confirmed at the Budget that tax receipts are £16 billion lower as a result of the reduced productivity forecast”,

and that the Chancellor said at the last Budget that the decisions the Government took on welfare would have to be paid for in this Budget, which she has done, although that will not happen until 2029-30. What will the Government do not to be bounced into the decisions they took on welfare, which then created difficulties for the Chancellor?

Secondly, the OBR’s report has revealed that it is quite possible that other Chancellors faced the same kind of leakage. The OBR has been in place for 15 years, during which all those Chancellors faced the same, especially Kwasi Kwarteng.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful for that question. The noble and right reverend Lord quite rightly says that the Chancellor was very clear that the productivity review would mean lower tax receipts, and the OBR confirmed that they are £16 billion lower. The OBR’s productivity review lays bare the economic consequences of the past 14 years. The OBR looked back at the productivity performance of the previous decade and concluded that austerity, Brexit and the pandemic have weakened the economy by far more than previously thought. That has an impact on the public finances and growth for the remainder of the forecast period.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House why the increase to forecast tax receipts as a result of higher forecast inflation and greater taxes on employment was the only information not made public in advance of the Budget?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Chancellor was not going to set out the entire Budget in advance. She set out the Budget on Budget Day. As I have said before, what she did before the Budget and at the time of the Budget were entirely consistent. She set out her priorities and then delivered on them. She said that if the productivity review were to lead to a downgrade in productivity, it would mean lower tax receipts, and it did. The Chancellor said that she intended to build more headroom, and she did. She said in the summer that policy choices would need to be paid for, and she paid for them. The Chancellor was also clear that challenging decisions would need to be taken on tax, and she took several challenging decisions on tax, including freezing thresholds for a further three years.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for coming to the House and repeating this Statement, which is in two parts. On the first part, some of the comments and exchanges so far have had an element of artificial outrage about them—but we can leave that to the debate on the Budget on Thursday. My question is about the second part of this Statement, which relates to the leak and the information that we have been given about how it seems to have occurred. This is not 1947—for those who understand the reference—but nevertheless it is a very serious matter indeed. If it is not too technical a question, I was wondering whether the IP address that started at 5 am to access this information 32 times has yet been identified, and whether we will be told about what happened, because that is the type of serious breach that we need to avoid in future.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend, and I agree with him that this was a very serious breach of highly sensitive information—a fundamental breach of the OBR’s responsibility—and it should never have happened. On the IP address, I do not believe that it has yet been discovered, but ongoing investigations may well yield that information. My noble friend is right: we are absolutely determined to ensure that this never happens again and we have set out next steps to make sure that that is the case.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

On 31 October, the OBR told the Chancellor of the £4.2 billion. When the Ministers met that same day, neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor saw fit to share with Ministers the news from the OBR. One Cabinet Minister is quoted as saying:

“Had we been told, we might have been in a position to advise against setting hares running on income tax and giving the public the impression we are casual about our manifesto commitments”.


Was the Minister told of the £4.2 billion, or when did he know of it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness seems to know very well what went on behind closed doors and what the Prime Minister and Chancellor said to Ministers in various private meetings. I am afraid that I do not think that she does know what went on behind closed doors. As I have said already, on 4 November the Chancellor had £4.2 billion of headroom before those policy choices were accounted for, meaning that she would have a deficit of £2.7 billion before any additional headroom was built.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had much discussion of the process in these questions so far, but can my noble friend the Minister remind the House that it is the substance of the Budget that matters much more for families and businesses throughout this country? The doubling of the headroom in the OBR has allowed the Government to provide for financial resilience in the country, which has been welcomed by the markets, because they understand that that is a vital ingredient for a stable and strong economy.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for reminding us that, at the end of the day, it is the substance of the Budget that matters. It is worth reminding ourselves what the Budget and the Chancellor achieved. She cut energy bills by £150, cut NHS waiting lists, cut child poverty, cut inflation and cut borrowing every year, faster than any other G7 economy. She more than doubled the headroom and protected record investment, and she supported faster cuts in interest rates.

Budget: Small and Medium-sized Businesses

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the Budget on small and medium-sized businesses.

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

My Lords, yesterday’s Budget rejects austerity, instead building a strong and secure economy—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It does this by cutting the cost of living and reducing inflation, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting government borrowing every year so interest rates keep falling. For small and medium-sized businesses, the Budget supports high streets with permanently lower tax rates for 750,000 retail and hospitality properties, backs entrepreneurs by doubling eligibility for tax breaks that make it easier for fast-growing start-ups to scale and stay in the UK, makes the training for under-25 apprenticeships completely free for SMEs and maintains the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday was the benefits Budget. The Chancellor has broken her promise not to increase income taxes. As she said in her Budget, because no national insurance is charged on dividend income, she will increase the income tax on dividends. Does the Minister think that she understands that national insurance is on employed income, for which an employee is paid a risk-free salary, but SME dividends are the reward paid to people who take a risk and invest in their own business to help the business grow? For some reason—perhaps he can explain—she failed to put national insurance on the huge incomes of lawyers and others in LLPs. Does he share my concern, and that of many others in the UK, that she has no understanding whatever of basic economic principles such that she does not understand the difference between salary and dividends that SMEs get for return on capital?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Unsurprisingly, no, I do not agree with the noble Lord. He will remember that, in the last five years of the previous Government, spending on welfare increased by £88 billion. The Government are taking action to ensure income from assets is taxed fairly, narrowing the gap between taxes paid on work and tax paid on income from assets. Those with dividend income pay considerably less tax than those whose income comes from employment or self-employment, as they do not pay national insurance contributions. It is not fair that the tax system treats different types of income so differently, so tax on dividend income will increase by two percentage points. Over 90% of UK taxpayers do not pay dividend tax.

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we know the vital role that the start-up community, and innovation within it, plays in our economy and its future growth. Would my noble friend talk a little bit more about what the Chancellor did yesterday to help that sector with its scale and stay agenda? Also, declaring an interest as a member of the London Partnership Board, and perhaps playing the Millwall card, may I ask my noble friend to acknowledge the role that London is playing in bearing a share of the burden again that is perhaps disproportionate?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he says about the action we took to help scale-up businesses in the UK. As many noble Lords will know, the UK is already a great place to start a business, but our companies are not scaling at the same rate as their US peers and raising less at later-stage investment. As a result, UK companies are either acquired, fail, or choose to go abroad to raise that investment. We will change that and make the UK the best place to start, scale and stay, because today’s fast-growing firms are tomorrow’s engine of jobs and growth. We are doubling the eligibility of our enterprise tax incentives, investing billions of pounds in public capital and delivering reforms to boost the attractiveness of the UK markets, making sure that those companies can access the capital and the talent that they need to succeed in the long term.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister and I will agree that the best way of helping businesses of all sizes is for there to be growth—meaningful growth—over the period. Given the words of the OBR boss, Richard Hughes, this morning on the “Today” programme that none of the measures in this Budget will lead to growth, it is very clear that the OBR does not rate the trade deals, investments in Heathrow or any of the measures as delivering growth over the period covered by the Budget. Where will the growth come from?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The OBR has upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year from 1% to 1.5%, reaching the same conclusion as the IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England, which have already upgraded their growth forecasts. We were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year, and we are on course to be the second fastest for the year as a whole. He is right that the OBR has looked back at the previous decade and concluded that policies such as austerity and Brexit have weakened the economy more than previously thought, and that assessment then directly impacts its view of GDP for the remainder of the forecast period, but the past does not have to determine the future, and we will go further and faster with our growth mission. We are cutting inflation and cutting borrowing every year of the forecast so that interest rates can keep falling, giving businesses the confidence to invest; we are maintaining public investment to build critical infrastructure; and we are backing our fastest-growing companies. We beat the growth forecasts this year, and we will beat them again.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

Well, it is goodbye Budgets for growth and hello tax and spend, is it not? When Ministers are forced back just to reading scripts—completely unedited, as far as I can tell—we get a gist of the sense of lack of authority behind some of the remarks that have just been made. Budgets used to have detailed studies of incentive effects attached to them. Could the Minister tell us, and publish, any such studies of the incentive effects on small business growth for the tax measures in this Budget?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord was characteristically rude, but I will resist being rude back to him. There were very many measures—

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

Could the Minister possibly say where I have been rude?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

There were several measures to help businesses scale up. The enterprise management incentive scheme will be significantly expanded and made available to more companies. Enterprise investment scheme investment limits and gross asset thresholds will be doubled, and venture capital trust investment limits and gross assets thresholds will also be doubled. The Government will obviously publish impact assessments for all those measures.

[Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the news of free apprenticeships for under 25s in small and medium-sized enterprises. This is good news for young people and businesses. What impact does the Minister think it will have on the number of people coming into apprenticeships in those arenas?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her support for what we announced yesterday in terms of apprenticeships. We are investing £1.5 billion over the spending review period for investment in employment and skills support, including £725 million for the growth and skills levy to help support apprenticeships for young people and to fully fund SME apprenticeships for under-25s. We will also introduce new reforms to simplify the apprenticeship system and make it more efficient when short courses are introduced from April 2026.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as someone who champions SMEs and regularly has my amendments rejected by the Government, I welcome some of what the Minister has set out. It will, however, be offset by the increase in dividend tax, which has been mentioned, and the negative effect of wider tax increases. Our main disappointment with the Budget, as has already been said, is the disappearance of growth as the principal objective, with no significant positive impact by 2030 according to the OBR. Does he agree that this neglect is particularly bad for SMEs, and can he answer the two questions on the overall impact of the Budget on SMEs now?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. No, I do not accept that the Budget is bad overall for growth and for SMEs. As I have said, the OBR has upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year from 1% to 1.5%. The noble Baroness’s policy of going back to austerity and cutting spending by £47 billion would be exactly the wrong thing to do at this point for growth. We need to maintain investment in our economy. In this Budget, we are cutting inflation, cutting borrowing every year of the forecast and keeping interest rates down. We are maintaining higher levels of public investment for decades, building houses, roads, railways and energy infrastructure, and backing our fastest-growing companies. She mentioned growth. She may have seen this morning that JP Morgan, the global investment bank, announced a $10 billion investment in the UK with its intention to build its new landmark tower in London. Jamie Dimon, the CEO, said:

“The UK Government's priority of economic growth has been a critical factor in helping us make this decision”.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

If the Government are supporting scale-ups and start-ups, what do they think about the fact that every single start-up and scale-up, even those very successful at fundraising, has been eliminated from the Department for Transport’s recent procurement framework and that they were asked to provide indemnities if they were to participate? How does that measure up with HMT asking regulators and the private sector to take more risk and not doing so itself? How do they get value out of the investment that they are putting in if it is not followed up with routes to revenue?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the importance of procurement to scale-up firms; I completely agree with her on that point. As part of the announcements that we made yesterday, we said that the Government will act as a better early customer to help UK firms prove commercial potential, including through a new innovation marketplace to fast-track strategically important firms into public procurement.