Public and Private Sector Productivity Trends

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s productivity trends across both public and private sectors.

[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, which led to the lowest growth in living standards ever recorded. This Government also inherited a situation where public sector productivity was 7.2% below pre-pandemic levels. Reversing that poor productivity 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, a modern industrial strategy and a 10-year infrastructure strategy.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Low productivity has indeed been a running sore for almost 20 years now. Frankly, there are no real signs of progress, which is why the OBR is poised to downgrade its trend forecast and leave the Chancellor with an even deeper black hole. We need a major reset, so is it not time to set up an office for productivity alongside the Office for Budget Responsibility if we want to achieve per capita growth and fiscal discipline? This would be an office with experts with first-hand industry experience delivering on productivity, including how to lead, manage, train, set targets, and reward and incentivise our workers in public and private sectors.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and suggestion. On the progress that has been made, he will know that the drivers of productivity are fundamental and deep-seated challenges that exist in our economy, that they are long-standing, and that obviously we cannot come in, click our fingers and improve that productivity performance—it will take time. For example, investment is one of the most important drivers of productivity. That requires changes to our planning system and the planning Bill is still going through this House, so of course it is going to take time. As I say, the productivity performance that we inherited from the previous Government has been too weak. Austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss mini-Budget have left deep scars on the British economy that are still being felt today, but those past mistakes do not need to determine our future. That is why, as part of our growth strategy, we have set out measures to increase productivity in the British economy.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, would the Minister consider looking at how the figures are compiled? Personally, I think that the contribution from the services sector is underplayed and undervalued in the calculation of productivity. Would the Minister also recognise the contribution from the 13 leading business representative bodies—indeed, pretty much every business in the UK—that the Employment Rights Bill will reduce productivity and growth?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

On the noble Lord’s first point, I am very aware of some issues around the data, and I believe the ONS has been reviewing it along the lines he suggests. On the Employment Rights Bill, he will know that labour supply is also a fundamental component of driving productivity, and that a more motivated and more secure workforce is a more productive workforce. I hope he will take that into account.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, we hear this week that only 11% of UK SMEs say they use technology to a great extent to automate or streamline operations. Do the Government understand that the slow pace of adoption of new technology by SMEs—many of which have not even adopted first-generation technology—lies at the heart of our productivity problem, which is why it remains incomprehensible that the Government keep adding burdens on SMEs? I know the Minister cannot tell us what is in the Budget, but can he at least tell the House that he recognises the problem?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I absolutely recognise the problem and I agree with 90% of what the noble Baroness said. The only part I disagreed with was when she criticised the Government. I agree: digital adoption and AI adoption will be central to solving the productivity problem. SMEs are vital to that. It is why digital adoption was a key part of our small business strategy. I hope we can work together on this important issue.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, the period from 1970 to 1990 was a time of rapidly increasing productivity, of rapidly increasing Japanese investment in particular, and of great reduction in trade union restrictive practices, which the Japanese would not put up with. What lessons does he draw from that for today?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his insight from that period. He is absolutely right. It was a time of high productivity; it is a shame that the second Conservative Government after that did not maintain it. We now have to deal with the inheritance from that Government. He is right to say that private sector investment is a key driver of productivity, so the lesson I draw from that period is that we have to encourage greater levels of private sector investment. Under the previous Government, private sector investment fell to the lowest in the whole G7. We have so far welcomed £120 billion in private investment and a further £150 billion during the US state visit last month alone.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we are very good at telling other people what to do? Is it not time that we started having a look at our practices and productivity to see whether we can run Parliament and the Commons much more effectively than we are at the moment?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very happy to say that that may be a question for someone other than me.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that, with 52% of the adult population having numeracy levels at or below those of a primary school leaver, low numeracy acts on a drag on the UK economy, leading to a critical skills gap and, ultimately, limiting productivity. Does he agree that unless we address low numeracy, as we have addressed core reading skills, we will struggle to achieve the economic growth that is at the core of his Government’s ambitions?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I agree. Fundamental skills are vital to improving our productivity. Labour quality is a key driver of productivity. The skills agenda is vital to that. That is why we recently set out measures to tackle that in the skills White Paper. I hope the measures she speaks about will also be looked at carefully.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree on skills, but a large part of the productivity problem in the UK has been in the public sector. This is hardly surprising, since the Government awarded huge public sector pay rises last year without a direct productivity link. Civil service numbers have also increased. Low productivity and growing headcount are not a happy state of affairs. How does the Minister plan to improve that rather dispiriting situation?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct to say that public sector productivity is a major issue. I know that it is something she cares about deeply. Obviously, she will be aware that the Government inherited a situation where public sector productivity was 7.2% below pre-pandemic levels; that is obviously and clearly unacceptable. She said that pay rises were awarded without any link to productivity. That is factually incorrect. At the spending review, the Government established a programme of public sector service reform to drive greater productivity. Every department has committed to at least 5% savings and efficiencies over the spending review period, with the Office for Value for Money working closely with departments to agree bespoke targets. This will result in savings and efficiencies equivalent to nearly £14 billion a year by 2028-29, and public sector productivity has already risen by 1.5% since the election.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in 1964 the then Labour Government sought to separate the Treasury into two pieces: one to look after the short-term fiscal tax-raising element and one to look at economic development. The same tension exists today. Can the Minister tell your Lordships how the Treasury is balancing them? At the moment, it looks as if short-term fiscal concerns are outweighing long-term economic needs.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I disagree with the noble Lord. I do not think that there is any tension between economic stability and economic growth. As I say, under the Liz Truss mini-Budget we saw the damage that grotesque economic instability did to business confidence and business investment in this country. Maintaining stability—that starts with stability in the public finances—is why our fiscal rules are so important to our growth mission. Stability is the precondition for economic growth in this country, so the two go very much hand in hand.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords, would the Government agree that, because we have a low-wage economy, we also have a low-investment economy? That is shown in the fact that 80% of all the transactions carried out by our banks, which were formerly owned by us, are in buying and selling private property, not in investing in new businesses and the kind of investment that the Government are now calling for.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am not quite sure what the question was. I do not think that I agree with noble Lord’s diagnosis.

Rules on Duty-Free Goods

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that the same rules on duty-free goods apply for those flying from Belfast to the European Union as those flying from the rest of the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, duty-free shopping between Northern Ireland and the EU would require the application of personal allowances and associated border checks to prevent the uncontrolled flow of tax-free goods into either Northern Ireland or the EU. The enforcement controls required for this would run counter to the Windsor Framework and to the principle of the frictionless movement of people and goods between Northern Ireland and Ireland.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather predictable Answer. Could I press him? Does he understand the frustration and anger that families in Northern Ireland have when they travel on their well-earned holidays to sunny parts of the EU and cannot get duty-free, while other citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom can? Does he understand that not having duty-free is costing Northern Ireland’s small airports about £5 million a year? Does he have any sympathy or empathy with the people of Northern Ireland? Will he make a commitment that when His Majesty’s Government are involved in the much-heralded reset, this will be one of the issues—it may seem a minor issue to some people, but it is quite an important one—to be negotiated with the European Union to change?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. She says that my Answer was predictable, but one thing that was entirely predictable was the impact of Brexit, which she campaigned for. Back in 2016, Sir John Major and Sir Tony Blair said clearly that Brexit would present specific challenges for Northern Ireland, given its land border with an EU member state and the importance of safeguarding the Good Friday agreement, yet the noble Baroness dismissed those concerns. Now that the reality of Brexit does not match up to the fantasy version which the noble Baroness had, she seeks to blame others for the consequences of her own actions.

Let me be very clear: the Windsor Framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstance. The noble Baroness asked whether I have empathy—absolutely I do. Placing Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the United Kingdom, by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods, provides significant opportunities for growth and ensures that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland. She mentioned the reset. As part of the EU reset, the EU and the UK have agreed to negotiate an SPS agreement. I urge the noble Baroness to support that reset.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it would be much better for Members of your Lordships’ House to argue for and underpin the value of dual market access whereby businesses and communities in Northern Ireland can avail themselves of access to the UK internal market and the EU single market? I agree with my noble friend when he said that Brexit was the cause of all these difficulties. It would be better if noble Lords sought to work to eradicate the difficulties and challenges presented by the Windsor Framework to underpin our local economy.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for her question and I agree with every word she said. The Windsor Framework is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. As she said, it places Northern Ireland in a uniquely beneficial position within the United Kingdom—which I hope we can make a lot of—by being part of the UK internal market and the EU single market for goods. That provides significant opportunities for growth and ensures that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, the Minister highlighted the principal rationale for there not being duty-free at Northern Ireland airports when flying to the EU as the need to maintain frictionless trade with the Irish Republic, presumably on flights to the Irish Republic. Is the Minister aware that not a single flight goes from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland? Does he agree that we are left in the absurd position of creating an additional problem to solve a problem that, in practice, does not actually exist?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I will clarify this for him. The original Question asked about flights from Belfast to the European Union, so that is what this Question is about. I will be very clear. If we have duty-free, we have to have allowances. If we have allowances, we have to have checks and enforcement. If we have checks, we have to have border infrastructure, and border infra- structure is contrary to the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, one of the key outcomes of the Windsor Framework was the plan for green lanes for goods leaving the UK but staying in Northern Ireland rather than being transported to the Republic. Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on the introduction of those green lanes?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

This may have been another of the fantasies that people had about certain Brexit outcomes rather than reflecting reality. What we have ended up with—I pay tribute to the previous Government for negotiating this—is the Windsor Framework, which, as I said, is the best workable solution to Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. We absolutely support the implementation of the Windsor Framework.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister described a very glowing situation in Northern Ireland, which is not necessarily the experience of the people in Northern Ireland, subsequent to the Windsor Framework. While accepting that the Windsor Framework is what we have to live with at the moment, does the Minister accept that there are many problems, that people cannot get access to many goods and services, and that goods are increasingly not being supplied to Northern Ireland because of the bureaucratic difficulties and economic costs? Would the Minister commit to considering all these matters and to bringing forward a reset that actually benefits Northern Ireland?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and insight. I will say up front, as I have said before, that we are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and to protecting the UK internal market. We will work constructively with all stakeholders—the EU, the Northern Ireland Executive, businesses, and political parties and civic society in Northern Ireland—to achieve that aim, taking into account the implementation deadlines. As the noble Baroness said, the Windsor Framework agreement secured substantial legally binding changes and flexibilities that do improve things. I hope that the EU reset will further improve things, and I therefore urge all noble Lords to support it.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government please start to renegotiate our entry into the customs union? It would eliminate the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and many others and increase prosperity for us. There is a very simple and direct set of answers.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and I pay tribute to her consistency on this matter. We share many similarities in our observations and analysis of the impact of Brexit. She will know that we are engaged in the EU reset, which will achieve substantial benefits for growth in the UK and for British citizens travelling around the European Union. I urge her to support the reset.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My noble friend, on this Question and a number of others that I have heard him reply on, demonstrates the passion that he feels for the European Union. It is a passion not shared by everyone. Some of us remember that the 40 years when we were in the European Union were not exactly flowing with milk and honey as far as the British economy was concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My noble friend will notice the support he gets from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Can I have my noble friend’s assurance that we stand very strongly by the Labour Government’s manifesto promise that there will be no question of us rejoining either the customs union or the single market?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am sure my noble friend and I agree on many things, but Brexit is not one of them. I hope that when he talks about our experience in the European Union he will acknowledge the OBR’s calculations that, had we remained in the European Union, by the end of this Parliament the economy would be £100 billion larger than it will be otherwise. That is a significant disbenefit of Brexit. As my noble friend knows, the manifesto stands.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, returning to the Question, we on these Benches fully recognise the importance of the agreements reached between the previous Administration and the European Union. However, there is a legitimate question about whether practical solutions could now be explored to address the specific anomaly. Will the Minister consider supporting a joint UK-EU technical group to examine practical options for restoring duty-free parity for Northern Ireland travellers, which could overcome the difficulties the Minister outlined? That process could be undertaken without undermining the Windsor Framework.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Let me be absolutely clear, again. If you have duty-free, you have to have allowances. If you have allowances, you have to have checks and enforcement. If you have checks, you have to have border infrastructure, and if you have border infrastructure, that will be contrary to the Windsor Framework and the Good Friday agreement.

GDP Per Capita

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the latest estimates of the current GDP per capita, and of the factors contributing to it.

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

My Lords, the latest data from the ONS shows that GDP per capita has risen by 0.9% over the past year, in line with the OBR’s forecast, and this is the second fastest in the G7. This compares with a fall of 0.1% during the previous Parliament. The increase in GDP per capita in the past year is due mainly to the strong rebound in both private consumption and investment. Of course, we want to go further, which is why economic growth is the Government’s number one priority.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Indeed so, but the Minister will be aware that the ONS’s latest figures show that in the most recent quarter, economic growth per capita grew by only 0.2%—less than half than in the previous quarter. Will he accept that this is entirely due to the Government’s policies on the national insurance increase, the lack of business confidence because of the Employment Rights Bill, and the wholly unnecessary delay in the Budget? Would he like to clarify his previous remarks about the effect of Brexit being 4% on growth and productivity, when he knows very well that the OBR said that that would be over 15 years? This means that on a per annum basis, the effect is teeny and within the margin of error.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The answer to all the noble Lord’s questions is no. He points out that GDP per capita grew by 0.2% in the second quarter of this year; that compares with 0.1% over the entirety of the previous Parliament. If he wants to make comparisons, I am more than happy to do that. I do not accept the points he makes about the Government’s other policies. We are currently the fastest-growing economy in the G7. On his points about Brexit, the OBR has been very clear that Brexit has permanently reduced the size of our economy by 4%. Its calculations are absolutely clear on that point.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that GDP would have been higher had we not had a Government previously who wrecked the economy, wrecked public services, gave us Brexit and left us with massive debt?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. The previous Government gave us austerity, taking demand out of the economy at exactly the wrong moment; a Brexit deal, which reduced GDP by 4%; and the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which crashed the economy. We will take no lessons from the party opposite when it comes to growing the economy.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the UK is the sixth-largest economy, measured by GDP. But, on the measure of GDP per capita, it is only the 18th largest. Our demographic profile, with a heavily aging population, is a key reason for this. This year, we expect to reach the scary benchmark of having more deaths than births. Of course, we need to upskill our population in advancing technology. Do the Government accept that we rely on net immigration to sustain the economy in the public sector and that there is no way out of that?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. The OBR is currently considering the economic and fiscal impacts of the immigration White Paper published in May and will report back in its forecast in the autumn. Of course, she is right that we are in a global race for talent, with many countries seeking to improve the attractiveness of their immigration systems for highly talented individuals. The immigration White Paper announced that the Government will review the visa offer for highly talented individuals by expanding the high potential individual visa and reforming the global talent and innovator founder visas. We have also agreed that we will work towards an ambitious youth mobility scheme with the EU, creating maximum economic and cultural opportunities between the UK and the EU. Any scheme would give young Brits the opportunity to travel, to experience other cultures and to work and study abroad.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s pledge still holds—specifically, that the UK will deliver the G7’s fastest growth in GDP per capita for two straight years by the end of this Parliament—and explain why investors, both debt and equity, should buy into this view?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, I can absolutely confirm that that remains our mission. Our growth mission is to have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We are currently the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and the IMF recently revised up the growth forecast for this year, the second time it has done so. I think both the IMF and the OECD currently forecast that the UK will be the second fastest-growing G7 economy this year. Our growth mission also includes living standards; since the election, living standards are up 2.1% compared with the 1.8% fall over the last Parliament—the only Parliament on record in which living standards were worse at the end of it than at the start. We also have a commitment on GDP per capita, as the noble Lord rightly says; the OBR currently forecasts GDP per capita to rise by 5.6% over this Parliament.

[Lord Massey of Hampstead (Con)]

My Lords, the ONS reported recently that 53% of the population are net recipients of state benefits and therefore make a very modest, to say the least, contribution to GDP. Meanwhile, 1% of the population are producing 13% of GDP and paying 28% of our tax. Whether we like it or not, the UK is becoming ever more financially dependent on its top earners but at the same time making it less attractive for them to stay and contribute to the UK. The evidence is mounting—we saw it from France yesterday—that people are considering moving their assets abroad and potentially leaving the country. So does the Minister agree with me that, whatever your ideological view of wealth distribution might be, the UK needs to focus on retaining its high earners, and does he recognise that if only 10% of the top 1% leave—that is 35,000 people—our fiscal black hole would increase very substantially?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That is a very long question but I can give the noble Lord a very short answer. Yes, of course, I agree with him. It is very important that we retain our high earners and retain as much talent in this economy as we possibly can.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, the equitable distribution of income to enable people to buy goods and services is essential for sustained economic growth, but all is not well. At Melrose, the CEO to average worker pay ratio is 1,112; at Tesco 375; at Marks & Spencer 261; at Associated British Foods 218; and 195 at Sainsbury’s. In view of this scale of inequity, what is the Government’s plan to secure equitable distribution of income for workers and, in doing so, also secure economic growth?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Clearly, we need to make sure that we retain top talent in this country, as the previous questioner asked me about, but we also need to make sure that we increase the living standards right across the income distribution, and particularly for working people. My noble friend will know that wages continue to grow and that in the first 10 months of this Government, real wages rose more than in the first 10 years of the previous Government.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, one of the problems facing the Treasury and the Bank of England is the quality, or lack of it, of workforce data. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made with the ONS to improve the quality of the data that the Government have to make their decisions?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely correct. That is currently a significant issue. As I understand it, the ONS is reviewing that data, and that review is ongoing.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, per capita GDP is, of course, a proxy for productivity in the longer run, and I am very concerned that productivity has become an increasing problem for the UK economy. What do the Government plan to do about it, in both the public sector and the private sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely correct to say that productivity is a long-standing problem in the economy. As I understand it, productivity fell to the lowest in the G7 under the previous Government, so clearly it is important that we have prioritised that. One of the most important things we are doing for productivity is increasing investment in our economy. We have revised the fiscal rules to enable us to increase investment in the economy, and I regret very much that the party opposite opposed those changes to the fiscal rules.

[Baroness Curran (Lab)]

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister explain to the House the role of record levels of public investment and how they contribute to economic growth? In his answer, lest we forget, can he remind the House of the financial legacy that we inherited from the last Government—particularly the amount of the financial black hole?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is very generous in inviting me to mention the £22 billion black hole. She is correct that capital spending is a significant driver of growth in our economy. The OBR estimates that the increases in capital spending that we have seen have increased growth by 0.14% over five years, 0.43% over 10 years and 1.4% in the long term. It is very regrettable that the party opposite opposes those capital spending plans.

Stablecoin Ownership

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

My Lords, in light of the Lord Speaker’s Statement, let me be the first to thank him for his outstanding service. I look forward to the following months of working with him. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I refer to my registered interests as a NED for the ALICE Group and co-chair of the Digital Markets and Digital Money APPG.

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

My Lords, stablecoins stand to play an important role in driving innovation in digital assets. It is important for the UK to position itself as a competitive global destination for digital assets, including stablecoins, while also addressing relevant consumer protection and financial stability risks. The Bank of England is engaging closely with the digital assets sector on its proposals for the regulation of systemic retail stablecoin.

[Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that response, but I want to press him a little. Stablecoins and their usage are growing across the world. At the beginning of this year, $200 billion-worth had been issued—by September this year, it was $280 billion—pushed by the emergence of the GENIUS Act in the US and MiCA in Europe. These regulatory frameworks have enabled corporates to take advantage of being able to move money with agility and confidence, and real-time liquidity. How are we looking to keep up with the pace of the rest of the world as the use of stablecoins looks to reach $1.9 trillion by 2030, providing a distinct competitive advantage to businesses and industry in other geographies?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Before I answer him directly, perhaps I may also pay tribute to the Lord Speaker. He has been a friend to me since I first joined this House when he was an MP. I pay tribute to his outstanding service as Speaker of this House.

The noble Lord is correct to say that stablecoins have huge potential to play a significant role in both retail and wholesale payments. We are already seeing the benefits that stablecoin can provide in cross-border payments; for example, by reducing costs and improving efficiencies. He is absolutely right that it is important for the UK to harness these opportunities for the ongoing competitiveness of the UK financial services sector.

However, I do not think it is fair to say that the US is going any faster than the UK. Reading media coverage, we may conclude that, but the reality is that the US passed legislation for the regulation of stablecoin in the summer. US regulators will publish their regulatory rules in mid-2026, with a backstop date of January 2027 for the US regime to go live. In the UK, the Government published draft legislation in April, with final legislation due before the end of the year. Alongside this, the FCA is at an advanced stage in its consultation on the details of its regime, with a view to finalising its detailed rules and requirements in 2026. This will allow firms to be authorised and running in the UK regime by 2027.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, let me join in paying tribute to the Lord Speaker. I do not know whether to congratulate him, or say it is with great regret that he is in a situation in which he needs to stand down. We have all appreciated his service so much. A great deal more will be said on future occasions.

Stablecoin is not just an issue of digital payments and the efficiency of the pipeline, although you might think that from listening to the conversation. The move towards a global rollout of dollar and renminbi stablecoins has huge implications for monetary sovereignty. A sterling stablecoin has implications for the gilt markets and, hence, the public finances. Does the Minister begin to understand my concern that neither the Government nor the regulators have a grip on this and are considering the issues only narrowly—frankly, at a snail’s pace; I am astonished at the comments that he made just now—which means that we risk acting too late to protect our own national interest?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not accept what the noble Baroness says. There are, of course, financial stability and other considerations associated with stablecoin, but these need to be balanced against supporting innovation and ensuring the UK positions itself as a competitive global destination for digital assets. As I set out in my Answer to the original Question, I do not accept that the UK is in any way moving too slowly. The Government will bring forward final legislation to create a financial services regulatory regime for crypto assets this year, which will include issuing qualifying stablecoin in the UK. This will provide crypto asset firms the regulatory certainty needed to invest and help drive innovation in our financial services sector, and at the same time ensure that customers are protected from the worst harms when they make use of crypto asset services.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, digital assets cover a multitude of products and being the first mover is not always the advantage that some claim. UK politicians and regulators seem to speak with very different levels of enthusiasm about digital assets as a whole, including stablecoins. Who is going to prevail?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The UK Government recognise that facilitating stablecoin innovation is important for UK competitiveness. The Bank of England is the independent regulator for systemic stablecoin and can design its regime as necessary to manage the associated risks. However, it is a matter for the Government to decide whether to recognise firms as systemic and then bring them into the Bank’s regulation. The Treasury and Bank of England maintain a close and ongoing dialogue on the legal and regulatory treatment of stablecoins, in support of the Government’s objective to make the UK a global destination for digital assets.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, in the interests of pushing back the frontiers of ignorance, can the Minister explain, in simple words for the benefit of the House, what stablecoin actually is and whether I can receive my old age pension in it—which I am due to start getting from today?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I wish my noble friend a very happy birthday— his question allows me to give him a good present. It is fair to say that, right now, he cannot receive his state pension in stablecoin, but the fact that there is potential for that to evolve highlights the importance of the issues raised in this Question and of having exactly the right regulatory regime going forward.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I also want to thank the Lord Speaker for all he has done for this House.

Although popular with some young people and tech entrepreneurs, most of us have little idea of what cryptocurrencies entail, their benefits or disadvantages—despite this week’s speech by Sarah Breeden, the Bank of England Deputy Governor. To return to my recent theme of financial education, will the Government take steps—perhaps by issuing a discussion paper—to ensure that all of us, from schoolchildren to pensioners such as the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, are better informed about them?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

There is definitely something worth considering in that. I have learnt a lot in preparation for this Question. I know very little about the subject, but much more than I did when I started. The noble Baroness raises an important question, in terms not only of financial education—obviously we should look at what she proposes—but of keeping consumers safe. The FCA financial promotion rules require promotions to be clear, fair and not misleading, with risk warnings displayed prominently, especially for high-risk investments. Firms must ensure promotions accurately reflect benefits and risks and consider the target audience, to help consumers make well-informed decisions. The FCA has also been cracking down on unlawful financial promotions by influencers as part of the regulatory regime being developed. The Treasury is working closely with the FCA to set conduct standards for firms.

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Lord Speaker for all his service—a good fellow Scotsman and football fan. I also ask the House to note my interest as chairman of S&P Global. Does the Minister agree that stablecoin is like most other financial instruments: it depends on what is backing it and what is behind it? The important thing is not pace but the right regulation that creates the right environment for the UK to succeed and that ensures that people are protected by making sure that the assets that back stablecoin are there, available, and understood by consumers and businesses that use it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with every word that the noble Lord said. Absolutely, getting the regulatory regime right for this is important. As I said, we will bring forward that legislation by the end of the year.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Crypto and Digital Assets. Does not the Bank of England’s announcement that it plans to regulate how much stablecoin an individual can hold—I say for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that a stablecoin is simply a digital currency linked to a fiat currency—send a terrible signal to people who want to base their crypto businesses in the UK? Will he ask the Bank of England to publish its modelling? Its reasoning is based on the idea that unlimited holdings of stablecoins might lead to a run on bank deposits.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I am sure that, as chair of that group, he could help educate very many of us in this House. As I have said, the Government recognise that facilitating stablecoin innovation is important for UK competitiveness, but it is a matter for the Bank of England, as the independent regulator for systemic stablecoin, to design the regime it sees as necessary to manage the associated risks. As I understand it, in November 2023, the Bank published a discussion paper on its proposed regulatory regime for systemic payment systems using stablecoin, seeking industry feedback. Following further informal engagement, the Bank will formally consult on its systemic stablecoin regime in the coming months.

School Fees: VAT

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the Independent Schools Council and the current president of one of its constituent bodies.

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

My Lords, at the Budget last year, the Government set out that ending the VAT exemption for private schools would raise £460 million in 2024-25 and £1.7 billion per year by 2029-30. The Government remain confident in these costings, which are certified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR will recertify these costings at the forthcoming Budget in November. The money raised by this measure is helping to raise standards for the 94% of pupils who attend state schools.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, have the Government noted a recent detailed survey by the Independent Schools Council which shows that their appalling education tax is producing an exodus from independent schools eight times larger than Ministers predicted? Does it not follow that the Government will have to fund many extra places in the state sector for pupils driven from independent schools, while simultaneously the proceeds from their tax raid on those schools plummet? Is it not the case that the Government stand no chance of extracting the £1.8 billion that they hoped to receive from independent schools to fund an enormous range of improvements, including, most surprisingly, the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation, according to the Prime Minister in June?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question—I think the short answer is no. We estimated that the introduction of VAT was likely to lead to around 35,000 more pupils in the state sector over the course of this Parliament. This is fewer than 0.5% of all pupils currently in the state sector and will take place gradually over this Parliament. This assessment was certified by the OBR at the time, and we remain extremely confident in it. Pupil movements so far are absolutely in line with this estimate and are in line with trends over the past 20 years. They represent, as I say, a very small proportion of the private school population. It should be noted that not all pupil movements are the result of this policy; they can happen for a large variety of reasons and will reflect wider demographic trends.

[Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the money raised from this will be spent on increasing teacher numbers in state schools and that 93%—although as my noble friend the Minister mentioned 94%, I will go with his statistic—in England attend state schools, does my noble friend agree that this is an excellent example of the Labour Government’s commitment to benefiting the many, not just the few?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend on that point. This is a necessary decision that will generate additional funding to help improve public services, including the Government’s commitments relating to education and young people. This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and are determined to drive up standards in those schools serving the overwhelming majority of children in this country so that they may receive the opportunities they deserve.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, one of our greatest concerns is that SEN pupils without an EHCP are forced from private schools that have the capacity to support them to state schools without the resources to do the same. Have the Government been tracking how many of those SEN pupils without an EHCP have moved, and are they looking at the impact on both children and schools, including school finances?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I know that this is an issue that she cares deeply about; we have had discussions on this point in the past. We recognise that the current SEN system is not delivering the outcomes that pupils and parents rightly expect and is placing unsustainable burdens upon schools, local authorities and taxpayers. The Government will set out the detail of our reform plans in the context of the wider schools strategy later this year. In terms of specific pupil movements, as I say, those movements are in line with the estimates that we set out at the time of the last Budget. Those estimates were assessed by the OBR and we remain confident in them. It is worth noting that so far this year 49 private schools have closed but 70 private schools have opened, and of those 70 private schools, 59 are special educational schools.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, the Government pledged at the last election that this tax increase would pay for 6,500 new teachers in state schools. Over the past year, this Government have seen the number of teachers in state schools drop by more than 400. How can minus 400 be an addition, even in the crazy mathematics of His Majesty’s Treasury?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord mentions crazy mathematics—I think he was one of the leading proponents of Brexit, so he would know all about crazy mathematics. This measure raises £1.7 billion to spend on state schools. He will have seen in the previous SR settlement for schools that, to raise school standards for every child and break down barriers to opportunity, the Government are increasing the core schools budget by £4.7 billion per year by 2028-29. This is a real-terms increase of 1.1% on average each year, on a per-pupil basis, taking per-pupil funding to a new record high.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

Will the Minister comment on data that seems to suggest that schools are using some of this additional money to fund free school meals—because there is insufficient funding for the level of the cost of those meals—rather than employing more teachers?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not know about specific decisions that each individual school is making. Obviously, how individual schools fund a specific policy is a matter for them, but I am very confident that our free school meals policy is fully funded.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, has the Minister noticed that when this was announced the Opposition claimed that it would shut schools, yet it has not? They are switching their arguments on a daily basis. Does he also agree with me that this is hard to take from a party which cut state school spending virtually every year that it was in power?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for the points that he makes, and I agree very much with what he is saying. As he knows, we are increasing per-pupil funding to record amounts. It is absolutely correct that we have heard many scare stories about this policy—that schools would close. Since VAT was applied on 1 January, private schools have continued to open and close in line with historic trends. As I have said already, 49 private schools have closed but 70 private schools have so far opened.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I start by echoing the tributes to Lord Campbell. It seems only yesterday that he was with us. I believe that taxing education is a shabby policy, and we have seen some 50 schools close since the VAT on private schools was introduced. This is another example of Labour attacking the sectors of Britain that are most successful: in this case, our private schools. They are very well regarded internationally and key to our country’s academic successes. Has the Minister learned anything from this regrettable episode about how and where we tax?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. What I have learned from this episode is not to listen to scare stories from the party opposite. She talks about school closures; I am sorry that she did not listen to the figures that I gave. Yes, 49 private schools have closed but 70 private schools have opened, so obviously there is a net increase in the number of private schools in our country. There has historically been a significant turnover in this sector, with around 75 private schools in the UK opening and closing each year and the overall number of private schools remaining broadly stable.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, will His Majesty’s Government consider using some of the money that they expect to get from this policy to reverse their recent decision to remove funding from state schools for the international baccalaureate?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not know about the specific policy that the noble Baroness is talking about but, as I say, we significantly increased per-pupil funding in the previous spending review to a new record high within our state schools.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Would the Minister like to confirm that, without Brexit, his Government would not be able to put VAT on private schools?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Without Brexit, GDP would be 4% higher, so we would not need to.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

As the Minister knows, there is very little boarding availability in the state sector. Against that background, will His Majesty’s Government look at understanding that all the families who need boarding are probably heavily involved in exporting and helping our nation? Will he consider removing VAT on the boarding element when there really is no other choice than to go to the private sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The answer to that is no. VAT applies to private boarding fees as well as private tuition fees. At private schools, boarding is very often included as part of a single overall tuition fee. Not applying VAT to private boarding fees would open up significant risks of value-shifting from school fees to boarding fees in order to avoid VAT.

Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 July be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 17 September.

Road Pricing

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce road pricing.

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

My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce road pricing.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

That short reply will allow lots of time for questions. Three years ago, the Transport Select Committee in another place produced a unanimous report on road pricing. The committee’s chair said:

“It’s time for an honest conversation on motoring taxes”,


and the committee called on the Government to “act now” to avoid a £35 billion “fiscal black hole”—something we know the Minister disapproves of. As electric vehicles become the norm, fuel duty revenue will fall away. That can be made good by road pricing based on the distance a motorist travels, the time and the place. Modern technology makes that possible. It would reduce congestion and make better use of our railways. By the way, the Minister’s Treasury colleague, Torsten Bell, has written a publication strongly supporting road pricing, so might he have a conversation with him?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. As I said, the Government have no plans to introduce road pricing. As he will know, we need to balance several objectives: we must always ensure fiscal stability and sustainability, as he indicates; motoring must remain affordable for consumers; and we must support the decarbonisation of the transport sector. Achieving these objectives means that we need to take a balanced approach. As the noble Lord may know, electric vehicles are now in scope of vehicle excise duty, raising an additional £1.6 billion every year by the end of this Parliament. We have set the rates for company car tax to gradually normalise the taxation of electric vehicles. At the same time, in the last Budget we extended the temporary 5p fuel duty cut and cancelled the planned increase in line with inflation. Meanwhile, we are maintaining incentives for people to buy new electric vehicles, including investing £650 million in the electric car grant and £400 million to roll out charging infrastructure.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, when I worked at No. 10, I led a team, which had Treasury representation, that looked at road-user charging alongside other transport issues. Does the Minister accept that a flexible system of road-user charging could bring many benefits, such as an allocation of free mileage for the less well-off, rates set to incentivise decarbonisation and dynamic pricing to reduce peak-time congestion?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I absolutely recognise the considerable expertise and experience that he has in this matter—experience and expertise that is probably found right across this House. I do not have specific thoughts on the specific points he raises because, as I say, we have no plans to introduce road pricing.

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, the last question identifies some of the key problems with road pricing. Mention was made of peak-time charging. That may be fine for civil servants and those living in London and the Home Counties, who have a high propensity to travel to work by rail, but the great majority of the rest of the country go to work by car. Those who live in rural areas have to travel long distances for facilities and for work. Those who work in industrial areas, again, quite often because of the location of the work, have to travel by car. There are huge socioeconomic issues here. Quite frankly, it needs to be taken out of the rarefied atmosphere of discussions between think tanks in Whitehall and instead have some common-sense examination involving car drivers.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I agree with a great deal of what he said. As I said at the outset, one of the objectives we must keep in mind is that motoring must remain affordable for consumers. As I say, that is why in the last Budget we extended the temporary 5p fuel cut and cancelled the planned increase in line with inflation, which saved drivers around £3 billion this year. It is why we are introducing a new fuel finder to increase competition between fuel stations and to help drive down prices. As my noble friend rightly says, a well-developed road network cuts transport costs, connects businesses to markets, and unlocks jobs and investment right across regions. That is why at the spending review the Chancellor announced £24 billion of capital funding over this Parliament to maintain and improve both motorways and local roads.

[Baroness Pidgeon (LD)]

My Lords, while I hear clearly the Minister say that there will not be any national scheme, what support is being provided to metro mayors across the country who may consider road pricing as a tool to reduce traffic in city centres and help improve public transport?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who I know has a great deal of expertise in this matter. The local schemes that she describes, such as clean air zones of the ULEZ type and so on, are the responsibility of local authorities, and it is right that the responsibility for those lies with local authorities.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, much revenue is raised from motorists through vehicle licensing, fuel duty and indeed congestion charges. If there was a move towards raising more from road pricing, can the Minister confirm that it would be coherent and reasonable and not just a policy of soaking the motorist? I have in mind the Government’s decision to scrap our planned Conservative restrictions on low-traffic neighbourhoods, which create congestion and encourage overzealous enforcement, and the overuse of 20 mph limits that hit working people—who are rightly a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Spellar—across the country.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness asks a hypothetical question that I have already dealt with. The Government have no plans to introduce road pricing. She mentions low-traffic neighbourhoods. We want to support local authorities to deliver streets that work for all road users and enable integrated journeys. Decisions on which neighbourhoods should be low traffic lie with local authorities.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I urge the Minister to be not quite so adamant in his rejection of road pricing. My first job in government was as Minister for Roads. A year in, I was due to visit South Korea to look at road pricing and the opportunities that might occur in this country, but I was moved the day before I went. It was to be my first and only trip abroad as Minister for Roads, and I do not believe that anyone went after me. The arguments that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Birt, have become only more pressing in the years that have gone by, but the opportunities for making the system fairer have also increased because of the increase in technologies. I therefore urge the Minister to think a little more broadly on this issue.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I say, there is a great deal of expertise across the House on this matter, and the noble Baroness is no exception. She knows a great deal about the topic. I think I have said what I was going to say on this matter: we have no plans to introduce road pricing.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, why is it sensible to tax a motorist who drives 5 miles in the middle of Lincolnshire at 6 am exactly the same as a motorist who drives 5 miles on the M25 at 8.30 am?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It may or may not be sensible but, as I say, we have no plans to introduce road pricing.

[The Earl of Erroll (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that there is in fact a huge privacy issue here? If, maybe in a marriage, someone can see where their other half has been going when they are not around, it could well cause a major rise in the divorce rate and other things.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That is an interesting question, but it is one that I have no view on since we have no plans to introduce road pricing.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

My Lords, this is one of those occasions on which I hope the Minister will welcome the fact that I strongly agree with him. I am very pleased that he has adopted the policy that we set out in our manifesto at the election to rule out road pricing. As the noble Lord opposite said, most people in this country go to work in a car and depend on their cars. If the cost of motoring becomes cheaper as people get more electric vehicles, protecting the environment, we should welcome that it has become cheaper, not look for opportunities to make it more expensive. I urge the Minister to maintain the policy of no road pricing, however seductively I suspect Treasury officials will try to suggest that he change it.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support of the policy that we have set out. I have been clear that, on many of the issues that he raised in his question, we as a Government are having to balance several objectives. We must always ensure fiscal stability and sustainability, motoring must remain affordable for consumers and we must support the decarbonisation of the transport sector. We will continue to balance those objectives.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, returning briefly to my noble friend Lord Young’s question, I noticed that the Minister has unwontedly not mentioned the £22 billion black hole. Can he tell us what the current shortfall is?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will not speculate now or give a running commentary on the next fiscal forecast. The OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn for the annual Budget in the usual way, and the Chancellor will take decisions based on that forecast.

Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025.

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

My Lords, the regulations before the Committee today will help ensure the effective operation of overseas recognition regimes. Specifically, they provide the Treasury with the powers needed to ensure that designations of individual jurisdictions are assessed and implemented in a manner that is compatible with our existing regulatory regime.

I will briefly set out the context in which these regulations are being introduced. The UK’s historic strength in global financial markets is built upon its international openness and reach. Our ability to provide unilateral recognition where the regulatory framework in an overseas jurisdiction provides for similar outcomes to the UK’s is an important tool to support cross-border financial services. Recognition can provide a range of regulatory benefits. These include enabling overseas firms to provide services directly into the UK, aligning requirements on UK-authorised firms whether they are engaging with UK or overseas markets or counterparties and providing regulatory relief by removing duplicative requirements on cross-border business.

Other jurisdictions also maintain provisions that allow them to recognise overseas regulatory frameworks. For example, the European Union maintains equivalence regimes; the United States makes comparability determinations in respect of other jurisdictions; and Australia operates a system that allows it to judge foreign regulatory regimes as sufficiently equivalent. These provisions promote consistent regulatory standards, provide the foundation for long-term regulatory co-operation between jurisdictions and support financial stability.

The regulations today were first published in draft form to coincide with the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech in July, alongside a guidance document that outlines the principles and processes governing overseas recognition regimes and a memorandum of understanding signed by the financial services regulators. As noble Lords will be aware, overseas recognition regimes are a new approach through which the UK will recognise overseas jurisdictions’ financial services regulation and supervision. The regulations support the effective operation of these regimes, specifically in relation to the designation of individual jurisdictions. They will ensure that designations are assessed and implemented in a manner that is compatible with our existing regulatory regime and thereby safeguard financial stability, market integrity, consumer protection and competition.

I turn to how the regulations will work in practice. They have three main functions. The first is in relation to information and advice. The decision to designate an overseas jurisdiction is taken by Treasury Ministers on the basis of an assessment undertaken by officials with technical advice from our expert regulators and made by statutory instrument laid before Parliament. The regulations give the Treasury the power to request information and advice from the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority as part of the process of assessing and then designating an overseas jurisdiction. A memorandum of understanding is established between the Treasury and the UK financial services regulators in accordance with these regulations.

The second function relates to conditions. The regulations give the Treasury the power to impose conditions on the application of an overseas recognition regime designation. These conditions are specific changes to the effect of a designation, for example, limiting the effect to a given size of firm, so ensuring that we are able to support cross-border financial services while addressing any areas of risk. This change will help to maintain consistency with the regulatory and supervisory standards that we expect in our markets.

The third function is to make amendments to two existing overseas recognition regimes. The Government previously established two overseas recognition regimes covering insurance and short selling under the powers afforded by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. No new designations have been made under either of these two new regimes, meaning that, as yet, there has been no need to use the powers in the regulations we are introducing today. The amendments to these regimes are simply to make the definition of “overseas jurisdiction” consistent across all overseas recognition regimes, including those already introduced, ensuring that there is a single approach across financial services regulation that is easily understood by firms and our international partners.

These regulations are clearly defined and limited in scope. Their sole purpose is to provide the Treasury with the powers needed to ensure that designations of individual jurisdictions are assessed and implemented in a manner that is compatible with our existing regulatory regime. They will ensure that we can operate overseas recognition regimes effectively and thereby support the global competitiveness of the UK’s financial sector, facilitate cross-border financial services and provide a consistent approach across financial services legislation. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I fully understand that this statutory instrument updates the basis on which the UK grants equivalence to the financial law and market practice of overseas jurisdictions. The Treasury obviously needs the powers to designate, limit or revoke equivalence. I am rather bemused that the Treasury seems to need new powers to get advice and information from the relevant regulators, but so be it, if that has previously been omitted.

However, I have some sense of caution around all this. As I read the Treasury’s guidance document, it seemed very weighted to change the decision-making process away from looking at the appropriateness of rules and regulations in overseas jurisdictions through the lens of whether they could contribute to financial instability in the relationship generated in the UK and much more towards whether they are compatible with the Government’s policy outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument crisply and clearly. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her usual well-informed comments, including those on the digital aspects of this proposal. I think that I am, however, more in favour of growth and competition than she is.

I start by saying how important secondary legislation of this nature is. The topic of debate today is the modified reinstatement of legislation that we as a Parliament passed during the process of exiting the European Union. Now that we are able to table such legislation on our own terms, we can bring it fully in line with domestic regulations, to the benefit of British services.

Cross-border financial services must be both secure and effective. This is why having similar regulatory frameworks to collaborative countries is so important. It is all well and good having an efficient domestic system, but if that system is not aligned with foreign trading partners, markets are likely to be boxed in and limited. Some form of alignment criteria must therefore be established to allow cross-border services to function. The outline measures aims to define the parameters within which an overseas jurisdiction may be recognised as equivalent to that of the United Kingdom.

It is also welcome that His Majesty’s Treasury, in addition to the described powers of imposition or limitation of conditions on an overseas recognition regime, will now have the powers to require regulators to provide relevant information to support equivalence decisions, and will be required to co-ordinate with the relevant bodies when processing overseas recognition regime designation cases. This will help speed up and standardise the decision-making of such cases.

Although the Minister said that these powers may not be used very often, I have two questions. First, the Treasury requires either information or advice from a regulator. If it needs that, it must, by notice,

“specify a reasonable period within which the information or advice must be provided”.

What would be considered “a reasonable period”? Perhaps the Minister could clarify the timescales. We want to see efficiency in the interests of stakeholders, and we sometimes seem to be rather slow in the financial services sector. That is one of the reasons I have four Questions for Written Answer tabled today about the progress of the post-Brexit changes in financial regulation, which we initiated and would like to see the Government complete. I would be very happy to hear today how the Treasury is getting on.

Secondly, the Explanatory Memorandum states that the

“advice that the Financial Services Regulators will be asked to provide”

by the Treasury

“will be agreed on a case-by-case basis”.

The scope for this seems too wide. I am aware that it is specified in the legislation that advice may be given only in relation to an overseas recognition regime designation, or a proposal for one, but the breadth of these designations seems wide. Will the Minister consider issuing some further guidance on the extent of the information that the Treasury is able to ask for in the name of ORR designations?

I look forward to the Minister’s response. In closing, I say that the Official Opposition support the statutory instrument and the measures to encourage a growing, healthy, open—in the Minister’s words—and competitive UK financial sector.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their detailed comments and scrutiny, as well as for their support for this secondary legislation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked a number of questions, which I will seek to address. First, she initially expressed her surprise that the Treasury required these new powers. I am told that this instrument replaces a similar instrument: the Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which gave the Treasury the power to request information from the regulators when considering decisions under assimilated equivalence regimes. The Treasury has exercised the powers contained in the 2019 regulations in support of equivalence decisions made since our EU exit. To date, no new decisions have been taken under any ORR, meaning that the powers in this instrument being introduced today have not yet been required.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also spoke about her concerns—we have discussed them before in the main Chamber—around the Government’s overall agenda of rebalancing from risk towards growth and competitiveness. As the noble Baroness knows, the Chancellor has expressed her clear view that she wants to see greater emphasis on growth and competitiveness, but she has absolutely discussed how central the financial services sector is to the Government’s modern industrial strategy and the key role that it plays in financing growth across the economy. She remains committed to the highest standards of regulation and does not see those things as being in tension—the noble Baroness knows that; we have discussed it before. I do not necessarily agree with the noble Baroness’s concerns, in that there is absolutely no question of a race to the bottom on regulation. The UK will remain a global leader in promoting the highest standards that deliver for businesses and consumers across the UK.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked a specific question about how the process will work and whether it is becoming too politicised. I do not think that that is the case. Many other countries have similar regimes; for example, the US makes comparability assessments. As I said in my opening remarks, the EU has equivalence, and our recognition process is consistent with international norms. Our guidance document sets out our approach. We have been clear that robust standards, safeguarding outcomes and technical advice from our expert regulators are all key factors in decisions on whether to designate another jurisdiction.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also asked about publishing regulator advice. The Treasury will always, as part of its designation process, summarise the evidence that it has received and considered in relation to the other jurisdictions’ regulatory frameworks.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her support for this statutory instrument. The drive towards growth and competitiveness, and the importance of this sector in doing that, is one of the rare areas on which we agree. I am also grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for the Mansion House announcements that the Chancellor made, building, as all Chancellors do, on the previous Chancellor’s work in this area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, she asked two questions: one about timescales and another about speed. Unfortunately, I cannot read the answer that has been given to me. I will ask my team whether we have an answer on the scope of the designations. I will write to the noble Baroness on the two points that she made, if she does not mind.

Motion agreed.

Making Tax Digital

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to use the rollout of Making Tax Digital as a strategic entry point to encourage wider adoption of digital tools among small businesses.

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

My Lords, from April 2026, Making Tax Digital for income tax will be phased in for unincorporated businesses, self-employed individuals and landlords, starting with those with income over £50,000. This will place small businesses on a more digital footing and should act as a catalyst for greater adoption of new digital technologies, unlocking the significant productivity benefits associated with digitalisation.

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for the helpful Answer. Given that Making Tax Digital has significantly increased the cost of compliance for small businesses through mandatory software and subscriptions, what steps are the Government taking to mitigate those burdens? Might this rollout be the right moment to consider an accounting software switch service modelled on the banking version, and to require that such software includes prompts to highlight underused tax reliefs as a core feature, rather than an added cost?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. HMRC has taken a range of steps to ensure that the adoption costs of Making Tax Digital are kept to a minimum, including working with industry to ensure that there is free and low-cost software available where necessary. The use of Making Tax Digital should bring significant benefits by increasing accuracy, reducing the time it takes to complete tax returns, and therefore increasing productivity. The rollout of Making Tax Digital encourages taxpayers to adopt digital solutions. For example, of those businesses already using Making Tax Digital for VAT, one-third have used the software for other business processes. More broadly, the Government are actively promoting digital technology adoption for small businesses, which is key to unlocking productivity and growth, and helping firms reduce administrative burdens. In our small business plan, we accepted all 10 recommendations from the industry-led Digital Adoption Taskforce.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, Making Tax Digital is not targeted at upskilling self-employed people and landlords; it is about cutting costs at HMRC. The requirements have led to a surge in calls to HMRC for guidance, but over half a million calls went unhandled in January, and the same in February, the last months for which I have numbers. How is this being handled, given that people who fail to comply face steep fines and penalties, and that when they rely on the internet they are at risk of being scammed?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

If I may, I disagree with the premise of the noble Baroness’s question. Making Tax Digital is about increasing productivity for businesses and helping HMRC close the tax gap, which I am sure the noble Baroness would agree should be a priority. There are clear benefits of Making Tax Digital, such as productivity gains to improve business operations, easier and faster tax returns by promoting digital record-keeping, and greater accuracy by reducing errors for tracking paper records. There is a substantial tax gap, and Making Tax Digital will reduce that by nearly £6 billion—some £4 billion for VAT and £1.95 billion for income tax. By doing that, and enabling HMRC to have the correct resources, it is able to direct resources where they are most needed, which addresses the point the noble Baroness was making.

[Lord Geddes (Con)]

My Lords, will it be mandatory?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

That was a good answer. I know that my noble friend the Minister is very diplomatic. But in view of the fact that there is huge controversy over the tax affairs of Mr Nigel Farage in relation to his house in Clacton and the huge amount of money that he gets from various sources, including GB News, is it not about time that the Government looked at asking Members of the other House to have their tax affairs made public?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is not for me to comment on the tax affairs of any one individual.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Does the Minister recall his time on the Economic Affairs Committee and the report which was produced—I am not sure whether he was still on the committee at that time—on Making Tax Digital? It welcomed the move but thought it was important to take account of the burdens placed on small businesses and the costs that were involved. Surely at a time when the economy is, shall we say, not exactly performing as he might hope, might it not be better to look at this again, with a view to the levels of fines and the speed with which it is being implemented? There was considerable evidence then that HMRC was simply contracting out its job of collecting taxes to people who were trying to run businesses in difficult times. Surely that is not acceptable.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I of course remember my time on the Economic Affairs Committee, and I was privileged to serve when he was the chair of that committee. We produced many high-quality reports. I do not think I was on the committee at the time of the report that the noble Lord refers to, but I fully appreciate that there are costs to business of doing this—I think the recurring cost is estimated to be, on average, £110 annually. It is important to say that HMRC has worked with industry to ensure that a range of software is available, including free and low-cost software, and of course those costs do not take into account the benefits. There are important productivity and time-saving benefits.

As regards Making Tax Digital for VAT, HMRC has carried out a detailed evaluation of the impact of that, which shows that two-thirds of businesses report time-saving benefits. Of businesses that were using digital accounting software for the first time, 80% reported significant benefits, a quarter reported improved productivity and one-third had used Making Tax Digital software for other business processes. At a time when productivity is such a challenge—an issue that we frequently discuss in this House—and when small businesses make up such a large part of the economy, if we can see two-thirds of small businesses making significant productivity gains, that is a benefit worth having.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I want to go back to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about helplines. I have to say that, for me—I declare my interest as a small farmer with a small business that wants to do things online—the helpline is not working at the moment, and we heard the numbers that show that it is not working. The most important thing is that that is understood and actions are taking place to make the helpline work, because the digital system will work really well as long as the helpline works too.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I reassure the noble Lord that I absolutely understand that. I recently answered a Written Question on this exact point, so I am more than happy to share with the noble Lord the Answer to that Question.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that everyone who pays PAYE has to pay their fair share of tax, but an awful lot of people do not pay their fair share of tax? Is not the use of technology one way in which we can make sure that they make their contribution?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point; the tax gap is a significant issue. Small businesses account for some 60% of that tax gap, much of which comes from unintended errors. One of the big advantages of Making Tax Digital is having more frequent reporting, and therefore there are far fewer errors. There is also the pre-population of end-of-year tax returns, which again reduces errors. If we can reduce some of those errors, we can reduce quite a significant part of the tax gap.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, in the Government’s plan for SMEs, Backing Your Business, they claim that they are prioritising growth and productivity potential—good news. However, in a Written Answer last week to the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, the Government revealed that they have no idea of the level of cumulative administrative costs of regulation for small business. Does the Minister agree that before his Government impose yet more onerous regulations on small businesses, such as through the Employment Rights Bill, they should find out the existing costs of their regulatory onslaughts and do something about them?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It may surprise the noble Baroness to hear that I absolutely agree. As part of our regulation action plan, we committed to reducing the regulatory burden on businesses by 25%. We must have a benchmark from which we reduce that burden. We are engaged in doing that, and, as I said, I completely agree with the noble Baroness.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

On the shadow Minister’s point about the impact assessment, the Government’s own impact assessment of the Employment Rights Bill puts the costs at £5 billion extra. How is that going to help the Government’s growth agenda?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We have an extensive growth agenda, not least in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that we talked about yesterday, and I hope all noble Lords will help that to move swiftly through the House.

Economic Growth

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the growth figures for July 2025.

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

My Lords, UK GDP grew by 0.2% in the three months to July 2025, following an increase of 0.3% in the three months to June. Overall, the economy grew by 1% in the first half of this year, well above the OBR forecast of 0.6%. This means the UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 over this period. Of course, we want to go further, which is why economic growth remains the Government’s number one priority.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Indeed it is, but the ONS said that there is zero growth in GDP. Of course, that means that GDP per capita will be negative, partly because productive people are leaving and less productive people are arriving. The markets have made their view of our economy clear, as our borrowing rates are higher than in any other country in the G7. Will the Minister agree to meet the Growth Commission, which has some excellent ideas on growth? As Treasury Minister, will he persuade his new colleagues of what every employer is saying, that the Employment Rights Bill will severely curtail growth? Now is the time to amend it.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his question and for his thoughts on growing the economy. After his success in advocating for a Brexit deal that reduced GDP by 4%, it is always very helpful to get his advice on economic growth.

The noble Lord mentioned the monthly growth figures. I do not know whether he is an avid reader of the Office for National Statistics blog posts, but he may have seen that the ONS announced this week that it will be reverting to leading with the three-monthly growth figures, which are less volatile and provide a clearer picture of underlying economic momentum. He may therefore have seen that UK GDP increased in the three months to July. In that data released, we can see that the Government’s action to turn around the legacy of underinvestment from his Government, opposed now by the party opposite, is having an effect, and construction output increased by 0.6%, driven by 2.1% growth in new infrastructure work.

The noble Lord may also have seen that exports to the US increased in July. He may have seen that the UK economy grew by 1% in the first half of this year, and that as a result, the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He may have seen Lloyds Bank’s latest business barometer, which shows that business confidence rose for the fourth consecutive month to its highest level in 10 years.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, 50% of the economy is small and medium-sized businesses. In its commentary on today’s rise in unemployment and fall in vacancies, the British Chambers of Commerce highlighted employment costs; in particular, it singled out the hike in employers’ national insurance. Earlier today, those noble Lords who were in Prayers prayed for the wealth and tranquillity of our nation. Rather than wait for divine intervention, can the Minister now admit that the national insurance rise was wrong, and it is contributing to neither wealth nor tranquillity in this country?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is a welcome return for the noble Lord and a pleasure to be asked a question by him again after a somewhat lengthy absence. The answer to his question is no. We heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches strong support for the investment we announced in the spending review. They supported— I think—every single piece of regional, transport, health, and education investment right across the board. Not a single piece of investment that we announced did they oppose, but they are now saying that they oppose the way in which we raise that money. That, I am afraid, is something we see on many Liberal Democrat leaflets across the country. It is also the route that led to the Liz Truss mini-Budget, wanting to support outcomes but not supporting the difficult measures to support those outcomes.

The noble Lord mentioned small business. We set out a very clear small business strategy to support small businesses in this country.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the Minister confirmed that growth in the United Kingdom in the first half of this year was the highest of all the G7 countries. Does he agree that those opposite who question and challenge this are talking Britain down and playing into the hands of the people who were on the streets at the weekend undermining parliamentary democracy?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I certainly agree with the first half of my noble friend’s question. It is important to restate that the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. The economy grew by 1% in the first half of this year, well above the OBR’s forecast of 0.6%. It is also worth drawing attention, as I did, to Lloyds’ latest business barometer, which shows business confidence rising for the fourth consecutive month. It is now at the highest level since 2015. UK firms remain optimistic about their own trading prospects, and firms remain upbeat about their business activity over the next 12 months.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, this is a different world. Given that the economy is actually struggling to gain momentum, as every serious economic commentator is saying, thanks to the Government’s disastrous tax and regulatory policies, will the Minister answer my noble friend Lord Leigh’s questions? Will the Minister think again on the Employment Rights Bill, conveniently now coming back to the House? Will he answer my noble friend’s very good question on per capita growth, which, as the Minister and I have often agreed, is the key to success?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The answer to the first of the noble Baroness’s questions is no. As for the second question, she says she is interested in growth but let us look at just one measure that we are taking. Our planning reforms have the largest impact on growth of any non-fiscal measure the OBR has ever scored. Yet her party, evening after evening in this place, is doing every single thing it possibly can to hold up and obstruct our planning Bill in your Lordships’ House. Is that the action of a party that wants to grow the economy? Our capital spending increases economic growth. In this month’s GDP figures, we can see the effect it is having on driving new infrastructure work. Yet her party opposes the changes to the fiscal rules that make that possible. She says she wants growth but at every single turn, she opposes the measures this Government are taking to get that growth.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, people’s inability to buy goods and services is a major reason for low economic growth, and 14 years of Conservative rule delivered real wage cuts, the two-child benefit cap, frozen income thresholds, and unchecked profiteering. Some 16 million people live below the poverty line. What plans do the Government have to abandon Conservative policies and deliver redistribution of income and wealth, and curbs on profiteering?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely correct to say that we need a different approach to the economy from the one we had over the past 14 years, and he will have seen how we are delivering on that. He will know that living standards are forecast to grow over four times faster than in the previous Parliament, and real wages have already grown by more in the first 10 months of this Government than in the first 10 years of the previous Conservative Government. He will know that, in answer to the question opposite, GDP per capita is forecast to rise by 5.6% over this Parliament. Under the last Labour Government, productivity growth was the second fastest in the G7. Under the Tories, it fell to the second slowest in the G7.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the new chair of the Climate Change Committee, who warned today that any weakening or changing of our environmental policies would spook the markets and undermine growth?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord referred to “our” policies. I am pleased that he agrees with our policies. Absolutely, we are committed to delivering net zero in the way that we have set out.

[Lord Hintze (Con)]

My Lords, what analysis has been done between tax rates and the growth rate? Ignoring that ignores the effects of the Scully curve and crowding out in the economy.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The points the noble Lord makes are perfectly fair. Obviously, the Chancellor has to balance at any fiscal event the importance of fiscal responsibility and sustainability and the need to grow the economy. She will do so in the forthcoming Budget in the way that she always does.

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

I will always be grateful to the Minister for his historic observations about GDP per capita. But what is the current GDP per capita, and how is its growth developing over time? Will the Minister please acknowledge that efforts on these Benches on the planning Bill are constructive, supportive and well within the bounds of reasonable parliamentary scrutiny?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think the noble Lord’s comments about the planning Bill would stand up to a moment’s scrutiny in the outside world. In answer to his specific question, GDP per capita is forecast by the OBR to rise by 5.6% over the course of this Parliament.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

Will my noble friend the Minister note that since the election interest rates have been cut five times? Will he also agree that this Government are not going to be lectured by an Opposition who, when in government, presided over the longest period of wage stagnation since the Napoleonic Wars, with real wages not returning to pre-2008 levels until 2025?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The last Conservative Government saw historic mistakes made over austerity, the Brexit deal and the Liz Truss mini-Budget. The consequences of those for working people were very real. Living standards are forecast to grow, as I have said, over four times faster during this Parliament than they did in the previous Parliament.