Tourism Levy

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what evaluation they have made of the potential benefits of a tourism levy to alleviate funding pressures facing seaside and coastal communities.

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

My Lords, the Government have no plans at present to introduce visitor levy powers in England. The spending review allocated place-based funding that aims to benefit many seaside and coastal communities.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Will he ensure that powers which might be required to enable local authorities to develop such a tourist tax will be included in legislation extending devolutionary powers, so that local authorities can work with businesses and other civic institutions to help regenerate our poorer seaside and coastal communities—encouraging them particularly in the hospitality, arts and cultural sectors?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I pay tribute to his consistent campaigning on this issue and on behalf of these communities in general, and to his expertise in this matter. He has led several reviews into it. We have been engaging with stakeholders to understand their proposals and will continue to do so, but we have no plans to introduce visitor levy powers in England. I hope he will have seen in the recent spending review that the Government announced communities funding for up to 350 places. Of the 75 places that were listed, 17 are on the English coast. We also announced funding for an additional 25 neighbourhoods over the next decade. Of the 20 additional neighbourhoods, eight are coastal. I hope that goes some way towards addressing the issues that my noble friend sets out.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister’s words will be greatly reassuring to the hospitality industry. However, in light of the important contribution that is made by the visitor economy to both wealth creation and jobs, can the Minister give the House an assurance that if any proposal were to be brought in, it would be for a fixed amount and not a percentage of room rate, that it would be modest and that it would be fully consulted on through DCMS? Further, given the heavy burden already being borne by the hospitality industry, will he study the example and possible mistakes of the Scottish system? I declare an interest as a former chair of VisitScotland.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I cannot give the noble Viscount assurances on something we are not actually considering doing, so I am afraid I cannot give him what he wants. As he says, different places in different countries choose to raise revenue from overnight visitors in different ways, depending on whether they are seeking to attract them, accommodate the results of their visit, or deter them from coming—different scheme designs do different things. We have no present plans to introduce such a levy.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the tourist levy initiative is not just about seaside towns, important though those are. Manchester has introduced a voluntary charge; others are following. Are the Government at least looking at the recommendations of the Cultural Policy Unit’s report on this levy, which argues that it could provide an additional but potentially significant regional funding stream for arts and culture, but that to maximise impact and revenues, it would need to be legislated for?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his question but, at the risk of repeating myself, we have been engaging with stakeholders to understand their proposals, and we will continue to do so, but we have no present plans to introduce visitor levy powers in England. The noble Earl will be aware that councils and local businesses can choose to raise revenue by setting up business improvement districts; for example, Bournemouth has a coastal business improvement district with the objective of attracting visitors, improving and developing the visitor experience, and building prosperity. That levy will raise over £2 million over five years.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that Edinburgh has become the first city within the United Kingdom to impose a city-wide visitor levy, which will come into effect next year. But it appears that HMRC now proposes to impose VAT upon the levy; it seems intrinsically unfair that a tax is imposed upon a tax. The matter appears currently to be shrouded in doubt—can the Minister clarify the position?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not know the position on that. I will happily check and write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to trespass on my noble friend’s usual reluctance to comment on anything that might appear in a future Budget, but is it not part of the devolution agenda to allow combined authority mayors—or, for that matter, the Mayor of London and other existing mayors—to make use of this as a tool to help regenerate their various services that tourists use and enjoy, as is commonly the case elsewhere? Could he also perhaps reflect on his earlier answer about business improvement districts? There, if I understand it, the levy is on existing businesses, not on the people who might use the services concerned. Can he say whether this is under active consideration in terms of the Government’s devolution agenda?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. As he says, there are devolved Administrations who have proposals in this regard. We have been engaging with them to understand their proposals. Obviously, we will continue to do so but, as I have said, we have no present plans to introduce such a levy.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, talking about business improvement districts, there is no better sector to help improve any town centre or business district than hospitality, which was hit very hard in the recent Budget by national insurance contributions, minimum wages and, indeed, business rates. How will this tourism tax help hospitality businesses continue to grow and invest in our town centres and seaside resorts?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not know what tourism tax the noble Lord is talking about because, as I think I have made clear, we have no plans to introduce what he is describing. He talked about the recent Budget. In the Budget we introduced a number of policies to help this sector, including freezing the business rates small business multiplier, together with a small business rates relief. This will exempt over a third of properties from business rates. We have also taken steps to reverse the decline of high streets, where one in seven shops now lies empty, by empowering local authorities through high street rental auctions to bring empty units back into use, and committing to permanently lowering business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

It seems pretty clear that a tourist tax is emerging as a form of generating revenue. Edinburgh, as was said earlier, is imposing one next year, and there are two voluntary levies, in Manchester and Liverpool. It seems to me that the Minister should certainly look at this in a couple of years’ time to see whether it is feasible. But does he agree the key will be that it supports culture, and indeed the hospitality businesses on which it is levied, and does not simply become just another tax that disappears into the council’s coffers?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is talking about something that, again, we have no present plans to introduce.

[Lord Snape (Lab)]

Will my noble friend bear in mind that cities as diverse as New York, Paris and Berlin have tourist taxes and that there is no noticeable lack of tourists in any of them? Would this not provide a valuable source of income, particularly for elected mayors, for example? Dynamic pricing—I understand that is what it is called—means that the price of a hotel room can vary by up to £100 a night, depending on the number of potential customers; a fiver or so will not make much difference in those circumstances.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend rightly points to different cities that have different systems in place. I think I said that different places in different countries choose to raise revenue from overnight visitors in different ways, depending on whether they are seeking to attract them, to accommodate the results of their visits or to deter them from coming. As I have said a number of times, we have no present plans to introduce visitor levy powers in England.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I do not believe that it is desirable to impose further costs on visitors to our seaside and coastal towns; nor will it incentivise them to come in greater numbers. We need to encourage visitors to these areas, not to discourage or tax them—as, happily, the Minister seems to be saying. A far better incentive for our seaside towns would be for the Government to reverse the devastating tax increases that they imposed recently on the hospitality industry, particularly with regard to national insurance. Given the hit to employment in that sector, do the Government have any revised plans to help with this difficult situation?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness rightly talks about the importance of the visitor economy. The Tourism Minister has set a goal to grow inbound tourism to 50 million visitors annually by 2030. To help achieve this, DCMS has established a new visitor economy advisory council, which is currently helping to co-create a visitor economy growth strategy, due to be published in the autumn. The strategy endeavours to share the benefits of tourism across every nation and region, including coastal and seaside areas.

The noble Baroness speaks about national insurance increases; it is only a few weeks since we stood here and she supported all the spending in the spending review that that national insurance is funding, so she probably needs to make up her mind whether she supports the spending or does not support the tax that pays for it. As I have already said, we introduced a number of the policies in the Budget to help this sector, including freezing the business rates small business multiplier, together with the small business rates relief. This will exempt over a third of properties from business rates.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, one of the problems that face seaside towns is that homeless people tend to prefer to be there rather than inland. Do the Government have any plans to make sure that the cost of looking after homeless people is shared more fairly and does not fall to such a large extent on seaside towns?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I said, the Government announced significant place-based funding in the spending review. Part of that MHCLG funding was targeted specifically at helping homeless people.

Tax on Imports under £135

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to take action to tax imported goods worth below the £135 threshold for value added tax.

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

My Lords, VAT is already due on all imports into the UK. The Government are reviewing the customs arrangements for imports under £135 and are exploring the merits of reform to the online marketplace rules.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad the Government are reviewing it; as the Minister is aware, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, RAVAS, the British Retail Consortium and many others have been campaigning on this issue for many years. Now that President Trump is reducing the exemption tariff for goods into the US, there will be extra pressure on Chinese suppliers to send goods VAT and duty-free to the UK. I understand that the EU is minded to reduce the exemption to zero in 2028. Can we be assured that the United Kingdom will not wait for the EU in reducing our exemption to zero?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Just to be clear, again, VAT is already due on all imports of goods into the UK, regardless of their value. Since 2021, VAT on imports below £135 is collected at the point of sale. There is some evidence of non-compliance, so the Government announced in April that we will review the online marketplace rules. We are engaging with stakeholders to understand the impact of any potential changes. On customs duty, given the concerns of domestic retailers about the lack of a level playing field, we have also announced a review of those arrangements. Since the Government announced the review in April, both Ministers and officials have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders on the impact and operation of the regime. The findings from that engagement will help determine the review’s next steps.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will row in behind the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on this issue. Could we get a slightly more satisfactory answer on why it is taking so long to find a solution so that the UK can collect the VAT that is due on small items? Will the Minister remember not just that we need the money for tax revenue but that the lack of a level playing field disadvantages British companies in this arena, which find that their goods are displaced by imports because they are not paying VAT?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We fully recognise all the issues that the noble Baroness has set out, which is exactly why we established a review in April. That review will look at the online marketplace rules to establish whether they can be amended to remove opportunities for businesses to avoid their VAT obligations. All available options will be considered, and it will proceed in the way that we set out.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Further to the question from the noble Lord, how concerned are the Government that, as a result of the Trump tariffs, Chinese goods will be diverted to our market to our detriment?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Department for Business and Trade has set out our measures to try and prevent that from happening, and it will continue to monitor it, as you would expect it to.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, broadening the topic on taxation a little, at the weekend the Transport Secretary said that in Labour’s manifesto it committed not to put up taxes on people on modest incomes. Can the noble Lord tell us the Treasury’s definition of a modest income?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Government have pledged not to increase taxes on working people, which is why we are not increasing income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

Can I help the Minister on how to collect a lot more in tax revenues by attacking the anomalies? By taxing capital gains and dividends at the same rate as wages, and by charging national insurance at the same rate, the Government could collect around £15 billion a year. Another £14.5 billion could be raised by restricting tax relief on pension contributions to basic rate only. Can the Minister explain why the Government have not tackled anomalies that favour the wealthy?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am always grateful to my noble friend for his Budget representations. He knows that I am not going to get into speculation about the next Budget and that, in terms of what we have done so far to tackle the tax gap, the Government announced the most ambitious package ever to close it, raising £6.5 billion of revenue in terms of the Budget. In the Spring Statement, the Government announced further measures which will raise over £1 billion in additional tax.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, to go back to the Question, foreign firms exporting to the UK are making increasing use of the current arrangements. As a result, domestic producers are disadvantaged and the Treasury is forgoing what could be a substantial amount of tax revenue. Given the concerns expressed across the House, does the Minister agree that the time has arrived to deal with this anomaly, and to do so as a matter of urgency? Has the Minister discussed options with the businesses affected in the UK, and when will the review that he talked about conclude? We would all like to see the conclusion of this debate so that our retailers are not adversely affected.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with almost everything that the noble Baroness said, but she failed to point out that it was her Government that established the existing system and it is this Government who are reviewing it with the intention of changing it. I agree with all the criticisms that she puts forward, but they are criticisms of her own Government. As I say, we have set out a review, and officials are currently engaging with stakeholders to understand the impact of any reforms and have so far held multiple round tables covering some 70 businesses. All available options will be considered, and we will come forward when we have concluded the review.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us how long this has been a problem, and whether anyone attempted to resolve it over the past 15 years? Can he say whether this is another case in which this Government have failed to put right 14 years of Tory mismanagement?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is not quite 14 years, I think; these rules came in in 2021. The previous Government prioritised trade facilitation in the aftermath of Brexit and, since 2021, VAT on imports below £135 is collected at the point of sale to prevent congestion at the border. However, this has opened up some opportunities for the rules not to be followed. We recognise that and have established a review, which the previous Government did not.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, this imprecision is not helping. In answer to my noble friend Lord Bridges and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, there was an attempt by the Minister to indicate what modest incomes were. However, equally confusing and rather upsetting is the Government’s inability to define what exactly they mean when they talk about “wealthy people”. Can he be a little more precise and helpful to us?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is very kind in trying to get me to speculate on the Budget, but that is something that I am not going to do. I will not be giving a running commentary on the fiscal forecast, nor will I be speculating on the next Budget now. The Government have pledged not to increase taxes on working people, which is why we are not increasing income tax, national insurance contributions or VAT.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, the last Government removed the VAT exemption for tourists—the ability to reclaim VAT—which hit a lot of retailers and crafts companies based in the UK. The unique campaign to get that tax removed united people like the Scottish National Party with the Labour Party. Is that now a done deal? Will the tourist tax remain in place, or will the Government ever review it in terms of attracting international visitors?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Again, I am very happy to take that as a Budget representation. As the noble Lord knows, we keep all taxes under review, but I will not be speculating on the next Budget.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have very wisely produced a number of 10-year strategic plans for the country, which have generally been welcome. The one area where we have not done any serious work is on taxation, and the fact is that both the wealthy and less wealthy are going to have to pay more money in the future to deliver these strategies. On VAT, there is a good deal of opportunity for flexibility, and the Minister has indicated that a review is taking place. Could that not be widened to see how far VAT could be extended to raise additional funds? Beyond that, could we not think about a review for a 10-year strategy on taxation for the country? We might try and bring in the Opposition to get them involved with it, too.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I know this is something that is close to my noble friend’s heart, and he has made those points to me several times. As I have said before, I am happy to take that as a Budget representation, but I am not going to speculate on the next Budget now.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, would the Minister just like to confirm that, when he talks about working people, he means self-employed people and anyone with a payslip?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I think that is a fair definition of that phrase, yes.

[Lord Hintze (Con)]

My Lords, I have a question to the Minister: why are we always talking about taxation and not being more efficient with our spending?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We have just completed a zero-based review of the whole of government spending. If the noble Lord has areas of spending that he would like to cut, I am very happy to hear them.

Primary Stock Exchange Listings

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implications of the decision by a number of companies, such as Wise, to shift primary stock exchange listings from London to New York.

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

My Lords, the Government want to see high-growth companies start, scale, list and stay in the UK. Current market sentiment is challenging, but the UK remains the top destination for equity capital raising in Europe. The Government are focused on further boosting the competitiveness of UK capital markets. In her Mansion House speech, the Chancellor will set out a 10-year vision for financial services.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Since tabling this Question, AstraZeneca, the biggest company on the London Stock Exchange, has discussed shifting its stock market listing to the US. This would be a real blow to our stock market of £160 billion. It is also increasingly feared that AstraZeneca could be redomiciled to the US, risking losses for London as a hub, hundreds of jobs and tax losses for the Chancellor. What changes will the Minister make to the UK’s investment environment to stop the troubling and damaging exodus of high-value firms from our market? We would love some detail.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. The Government recognise, as she did, that the UK’s equity markets have faced challenges in recent years, but that is not a new phenomenon; there has been a net decline in investment in UK funds for nine consecutive years. That is a matter for concern, of course, though it reflects global trends and the outflow in 2024 was £2.3 billion less than in 2023.

Firms may choose to list in other countries for a variety of reasons. The noble Baroness mentioned some specific companies. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual companies or on speculation, but, of course, the Government should do everything that they can, as she said, to improve the competitiveness of our market and the attractiveness of the UK as a place to list. We are taking forward reforms to boost competitiveness, including overhauling the prospectus regime and legislating for PISCES. This will complement the FCA’s rewrite of the UK’s listing rules, providing more flexibility to raise capital on UK markets. As I have said, next week at Mansion House, the Chancellor will publish our 10-year strategy for financial services, which will include capital markets.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My noble friend raises an important issue, and I am grateful for his reply. The noble Baroness raised the large companies, but surely the real problem is the rebalancing over several years of the London Stock Exchange away from the funding of small start-ups which are proving their worth and need to be able to scale up. Might it not be time to have an investigation into the direction, strategy and governance of the LSE?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right on the importance of capital for start-ups and how we can enable them to scale up. It is why in the industrial strategy and the spending review we significantly increased the funding available to the British Business Bank to help innovative small companies to do exactly that. They now have record amounts of capital. We have increased the capital available to our funding streams in that way by 40% since the election, and I think that is exactly what my right honourable friend is seeking to do.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of the London Stock Exchange. In addition to the pull of US investors, does the Minister recognise that there are push factors making the UK a hostile environment for innovative, high-tech growth companies? There are neither public nor private sector customers, as the chair of GSK told our Science and Technology Committee recently. Excessive government retention of IP exploitation rights in procurement and grant contracts undermines companies’ growth prospects.

We are 45 years behind the US, which ended such emasculating IP contract terms in the Bayh–Dole Act, leading to the boom in revenue-producing high-tech companies and university spinoffs. Will HMT put its weight behind the economic benefit and long-term value for money that growth-friendly licensing contracts would have? Will the Minister meet to discuss these and how the UK can get its own Bayh–Dole effect?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I do not necessarily share the overall pessimism that she started her question with. Of course, reform is necessary and that is why next week at Mansion House the Chancellor will publish the 10-year strategy for financial services, which I hope will cover some of the things the noble Baroness is talking about. We need to rebalance our system towards growth in the way she described.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, the loss of AstraZeneca, were it to happen, would be a devastating blow to the London Stock Exchange. Is it not therefore very important, if we are to retain the listings, that the Government have a supportive policy for life sciences in particular? Is it not regrettable, first, that the life sciences review has not yet appeared and, secondly, that the Government refused to back the vaccine plant at Speke near Liverpool? The Government also increased the rebate payable by pharma companies from drug sales from 15% to 22%—a stealth increase if ever there was one. Is it not important that, if we want to retain the listings, which will mean retaining the research, development and employment, we have a proper strategy with these companies and do not just regard them as cash cows but valuable investments to be encouraged?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I fundamentally agree with the underlying point the noble Lord made about the importance of investing in and having the right environment for life sciences companies in this country; they are incredibly important to us. It is why they are fundamental to our industrial strategy.

In terms of specifics, I am not going to comment on speculation. We want to see high-growth companies start, scale, list and stay in the UK. He is absolutely right; the life sciences sector plan is forthcoming. If he is just a little bit more patient, he will see it very soon. Through that, we will seek to harness the life sciences sector to drive long-term economic growth and build a stronger, prevention-focused NHS.

[Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)]

I think that most people would agree that there is a depressing lack of detail from the Minister in response to the important question about the lack of support given, compared with the United States, to high-growth businesses. Perhaps the Minister is not fully briefed on it. Could he come back to the House, if necessary in writing, and give us much greater detail rather than just saying we have to wait for a speech at the Mansion House for an answer?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I cannot say what the Chancellor is going to say at her Mansion House speech now, otherwise there would not be much point in her giving her Mansion House speech then. She will publish a 10-year strategy for financial services at that point, and I am sure the noble Lord will enjoy reading it.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, reference has been made to the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships’ House, of which I am a member. It is investigating the crucial question of how we can scale up companies in Britain. I ask my noble friend the Minister what he hopes the effect of the Mansion House accords and reforms will be on trying to, for example, get more of our pension funds in this country to invest in British-based science and technology companies, because that will be crucial for the future of growth.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question, and I pay tribute to his expertise in this area; I know it is something he is deeply passionate about. He speaks about the importance of scale-up in this country. For many years, we have been very good at start-up, but much less good at scale-up. That is something we are seeking to do. As I have already mentioned, the reforms and increased capital for the British Business Bank will be crucial to that. Throughout our work to develop the industrial strategies, we have seen that access to finance has been a central challenge for many companies. He talks about our pension reforms and the Mansion House compact. Those reforms aim to generate up to £50 billion of additional capital to help companies to start to scale up and for crucial funding at that stage of their life.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a senior partner of Cavendish plc, the largest nominated adviser to listed companies on the stock exchange. We asked our clients why they are going to America. They give us two reasons: the multiples are higher in America—so be it—and the net remuneration package. Both founders of Wise and many directors of AstraZeneca were born abroad. The non-dom rules are driving away entrepreneurs in droves. This is why many companies are choosing to list abroad. We know that Labour is going to change its policy on non-dom tax—it is not a question of if; it is a question of when. Can I implore the Minister to speak to Treasury to make it as soon as possible?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I commend the noble Lord for knowing more about government policy than I do. He talks about those companies listing abroad. It is interesting, just to look at some evidence, that IPOs on US exchanges show that non-US companies tend to perform much less well than US ones, suggesting that from a valuation perspective it is better for firms to list on their home market. In the last 10 years, of the 20 British companies that listed in the US, nine have already delisted, only four are trading above their IPO price and the rest are trading down on average by 80%.

Tax Increases

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harper]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the decision not to proceed with changes to Personal Independence Payments, whether they have plans to increase taxes as a consequence.

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

My Lords, the OBR will produce a new forecast in the autumn before the annual Budget, and the Chancellor will take decisions based on that forecast. We will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget in the usual way.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. It is very clear, following recent events, that this Government are not going to make any meaningful reform of the welfare system and save any money, despite saying that the system is broken. They have said they are not going to touch their existing spending plans, so that means tax rises are coming, as we predicted. In her Budget speech, the Chancellor said that it was the Government’s policy not to freeze tax thresholds any longer from 2028-29 because that would hurt working people, and that from 2028-29 thresholds will continue to be uprated. To be clear, I am not asking the Minister to write future Budgets today. I am simply asking him to repeat from the Dispatch Box that those words of the Chancellor’s remain the Government’s policy.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely correct that there are financial consequences to the decisions that have been taken, but he will not be surprised to know that I will not speculate on the next Budget now. We will do things in the usual way. The Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new forecast in the autumn before the annual Budget and will take decisions based on that forecast. We will set out our fiscal plans at the Budget in the usual way.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, in all our discussions of tax and spend, we very rarely address the third pillar—the state of the gilts market. Was the Minister as taken aback as I was to read in the OBR report that, at the end of June, the UK tenure bond yield had the third-highest borrowing cost of any advanced economy except for New Zealand and Iceland? With the withdrawal of pension funds from demanding treasuries as we come to the end of defined benefit plans, there seems to be no plan in place to expand the investor base. The United States is using stablecoin to increase the appetite to take up US treasuries. This is essential, so are the UK Government pursuing any such strategies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness knows that I will not comment on specific financial market movements, but I will write to her on stablecoin if that is okay with her.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, we have just heard that the benefits system is broken. Can the Minister remind us who broke it? Is this not a case of having to clear up the mess that they left?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right to point out the mess that we inherited and why so many difficult decisions had to be taken. He is right to point to the mess they left us in the welfare system; I think we had the highest proportion of people not working and were the only country in the G7 where worklessness had not returned to where it was pre pandemic. We also had to clear up a mess in the public finances, which is why, as he rightly says, we have had to take so many difficult decisions.

[Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)]

My Lords, in answering his noble friend, the Minister seems to have forgotten that the cost of servicing debt is higher now than it was at the worst time under the last Conservative Government. Surely he must take responsibility for that. His Government have been in power for a year.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Why does the noble Baroness think the UK has such a high stock of debt? Is it because her Government doubled the national debt? Yes, it is.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I was very struck by the article in the Times the other day by Paul Johnson, former leader of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, in which he said that we have an entirely illusory debate about tax and spend. There are calls from a substantial number of newspapers and at least one political party for tax cuts, but nobody ever says where they will fall or what our spending parameters are. This Government have made a commitment to raise our defence spending by over 1% of GDP, which I assume that all the major parties support. That means that tax rises are likelier than tax cuts, unless there are severe cuts elsewhere—for example, in pensions. Could the Government not make some attempt to reach an agreement among the parties such that, when discussing taxes rising and falling, we also discuss what the spending priorities are and what cuts may necessarily be possible?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

In the spending review, the Government set out our spending plans and a fully funded path to spending 2.6% of GDP on defence. We have an ambition to increase it to 3% in the next Parliament, as the noble Lord knows. I will not speculate on the next Budget now. As I have said, there will be an OBR forecast in the autumn before the annual Budget and we will make decisions based on it, in the usual way.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, just for clarification, the Minister said that the Government have an ambition to raise defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. My understanding is that the Prime Minister has committed the UK to increasing it to 3.5% by 2035. Could the Minister please clarify?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is 3% in the next Parliament. I think those commitments are for the Parliament after next.

[Lord Altrincham (Con)]

My Lords, with rather delicate timing, the OBR published its Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report on Tuesday. It used the word “daunting” for our fiscal sustainability outlook. It expects health-related outflows to fall a little, not overall but towards the levels of a few years ago. How will the Government explain to the OBR the positioning of the outlook for personal independence payments?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The OBR is aware of the Government’s policy. It is for it to certify the costings of that policy in its next forecast. As I have said, we will ask it for that forecast in time for the annual Budget and make decisions based on that.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, as this seems to be a free-for-all on putting forward our economic theories, could we ban discussions of tax cuts and rises and instead look at tax simplification? There is an excellent article in this week’s New Statesman—a magazine that I read assiduously every week—that regurgitates the excellent work by Paul Johnson, who has been mentioned. It points out that we have one of the longest tax codes in the world. George Osborne was undone by a pasty tax. Surely this Minister can see to it that we can tax an ice cream cone properly and really simplify taxes, which would have a huge impact on business confidence.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. It is not for me to ban conversations about tax rises or cuts, but I understand what he says about tax simplification and will take his thoughts about ice cream cones back to my colleagues in the Treasury.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that we have a serious long-term question here, beyond what the Chancellor will do in the next year? We have underlying pressures on defence and demography, on top of which we have the reforms on disabilities and SEND in schools that the previous Government introduced, which have led to rocketing bills that something has to be done about at some stage. Will the Government therefore engage in a long-term debate about how we finance the welfare state, which most of the British population strongly adhere to?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to point out the long-standing and long-term challenges that we face in fiscal policy. As the noble Lord opposite said, the OBR set out some long-standing economic realities in its fiscal risks report this week. That is why it is so important that we are committed to ensuring stability in the economy through our fiscal rules. My noble friend mentioned special educational needs. He is absolutely right that, right now, the system is not working; less than half of education, health and care plans are issued within the 20-week deadline and only 22% of children with special educational needs are reaching the expected levels in maths and English. We absolutely need to deliver better support for vulnerable children and their parents, which is why we will set out wider plans for SEND reform later this year as part of the upcoming schools White Paper. On the longer-term debate that my noble friend talks about, I am always more than happy to discuss those issues with him.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is a point when higher tax rates lead to lower government revenues? We heard an example from my noble friend Lord Leigh in the last Question that the Minister dealt with about non-doms provoking some companies to change their domicile or listing. There will come a point when it causes people to retire early, emigrate or work differently. If he accepts that there is such a point, how close does he think we have got to it?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is just talking about the revenue maximisation point. We are past that, for example, on tobacco taxes, as a deliberate government policy. Of course it exists; I do not think it is particularly novel.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 May be approved.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.

Motion agreed.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches accept that fiscal rules are important, and we have noted the Government’s attachment to the current version and the widespread concern as to where they will turn for spending cuts or tax rises, as it is apparent that the rules are not going to be met. Today’s OBR Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report concludes:

“The UK’s public finances have emerged from a series of major global economic shocks in a relatively vulnerable position”.


We have heard from the OBR that the UK Government have the sixth-highest debt, the fifth-highest deficit and the third-highest borrowing costs among 36 advanced economies. In November, the Chancellor wrote to the Economic Affairs Committee in response to its robust and convincing report on the UK’s national debt. She said:

“The Budget took the necessary difficult decisions to put the public finances on a sustainable path—setting realistic plans for public spending while raising revenue—to create the conditions for growth”.


In the light of the dismal and depressing OBR report, does the Minister agree that this Statement and the Government’s entire economic strategy are in tatters and that the Chancellor needs to write another, more realistic letter?

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

The noble Baroness mentions many things. She mentions debt. Of course, the last Government doubled the national debt. There is one reason why we are where we are. It is because of the last Government losing control of the economy—something that this Government will not do. We will meet our fiscal rules at all times. I am not going to give a running commentary on those fiscal rules. Following the usual process, the Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new forecast in the autumn for the annual Budget, which will include an updated assessment of the Government’s performance against the fiscal rules. At that time, we will set out our fiscal plans in the usual way.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have constantly asserted that meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable. Will the Minister now reassure the House that protecting the NHS and social care is also non-negotiable, and rule out any cuts to those services as the Government try to balance the books? Will he also accept that raising employers’ NICs, especially on small businesses, is actually holding back growth? Will he look instead at what we recommended—raising taxes on the broadest shoulders of the social media giants, the gambling companies and the big banks—to consider some proper relief and support for those small businesses?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I normally try to agree with the noble Baroness, but that is one of the most extraordinary questions I have heard in these debates. She says that we should protect the NHS and then says that we should not have the main measure that is funding the NHS. If she wants the investment in the NHS, she has to stand up for the taxes that fund the NHS.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, on the fiscal rules, may I suggest the following? First, the welfare budget is far too high and must be substantially reduced. Secondly, economic growth is the only way out of our present mess. Thirdly, heaping taxes on primary wealth producers is highly counterproductive. Fourthly, if additional taxes must be imposed, they are best imposed generally, so that most people can understand the consequences of the policies they support.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I may have agreed with the first half of the noble Viscount’s question; I am not sure I agreed with the second half of it. But, absolutely, the best way to repair the public finances is through economic growth. That is why it is our number one mission.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, since the 2008 financial crisis, this country has built an unsustainable level of public debt in relation to our GDP, and the cost of servicing that debt is a serious constraint on financing public services. Does the Minister agree that any easing of fiscal rules in those circumstances would run a serious risk of creating another financial crisis, with more hardship? Will he undertake to stick firmly to the rather lax fiscal rules we have, as the Chancellor keeps affirming, and try to put up more stalwart resistance to the left-wing Back-Benchers in his party who seem to have got into the House of Commons in rather considerable numbers?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I slightly disagree with the noble Lord’s characterisation of the Parliamentary Labour Party, but I certainly agree with what he says about the fiscal rules. They are essential to maintaining our ability to invest in our public services. The second fiscal rule absolutely allows the additional investment into our public services, but, as he says and as I have said before, the previous Government doubled the national debt, and we have to fund that. The more that it looks like we will not, the harder it becomes. I give him that undertaking. Our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.

[Lord Razzall (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the original purpose of the change in the fiscal rules brought in by his Government was to ensure that we did not have a ball-by-ball commentary, every time there was the remotest whiff of a financial crisis, on whether or not the fiscal rules were being observed? As I understood it, there was going to be a five-year look at the fiscal rules, but, as things stand, it appears that we are going to be subjected constantly to the noble Baroness’s question about whether the Government is complying with them. I thought the whole point about these rules, as they stand, was that that question was unnecessary.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

There are two things here: the fiscal framework and the fiscal rules. On the fiscal framework, we have moved to one fiscal event a year, which is the November Budget. There are two fiscal forecasts, in the spring and in the autumn. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we should not give a running commentary on the fiscal forecast. That is, quite properly, for the Office for Budget Responsibility to do. It will do that in the usual way ahead of the annual Budget, and then the Chancellor will make decisions based on that forecast.

The noble Lord talks about the fiscal rules. The one thing I will say is that the changes to the fiscal rules that we made when we came into office were to enable us to invest sustainably in infrastructure and in public services, to stop the cannibalisation of investment to patch up day-to-day spending which we saw under the previous Government. It is interesting that the party opposite has opposed that change to the fiscal rules yet still supports the additional investment that that changed fiscal rule brings. Again, I am not sure that that is entirely consistent.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister rule out following the example of the Truss Government, who crashed the economy? Has he received an apology for being left such a sad state of affairs in the economy that we have inherited?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. It is exactly because of the experience of the previous Government—that disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget, which saw mortgage rates spiral and from which working people are still suffering higher mortgage payments—that it is so important that we maintain fiscal responsibility and why we absolutely continue to adhere to our fiscal rules.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, today’s OBR report shows that the cost of the pensions triple lock is running three times higher than previously forecast. It is costing over £10 billion a year, and we now know that pensioners, on average, enjoy higher living standards than working-age families. If tough decisions have to be taken to meet the fiscal rules, will the pensions triple lock be reviewed?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I know that that is the policy of the noble Lord’s party; it is not the policy of this party. The OBR fiscal risks report talks about an ageing population and how that presents significant fiscal challenges in supporting pensioners. The landmark pensions review, in terms of delivering better outcomes for savers and strengthening the economy, is important in that regard.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, if we get defence policy wrong and there is a war, welfare and the National Health Service will count for nothing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, in his first answer, the Minister used the phrase, “lost control of the economy”, which is familiar from the election. It is a very telling phrase. Which bits of the economy would he like to control that are not currently controlled? Is not the reality that the problem is losing control not of the economy but of the deficit? I have to ask: in what areas will the Government slow the increase in welfare spending? If they are not going to do PIP or child benefit, where is he going to find the savings?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will tell the noble Lord what matters in terms of controlling the public finances: economic growth, which his Government singularly failed on. Whether it was the Liz Truss mini-Budget, the Brexit deal that he supported and championed, or austerity at exactly the wrong moment for the economy, the previous Government’s record on economic growth was woeful.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I think the public are getting a bit bored of the mantra of blaming the previous Government—that is a long time ago now.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

What are the current Government going to do about the current problem?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think the public are getting bored of it. The noble and learned Lord may be getting bored of it, perhaps because he is slightly sensitive about it. If he thinks that 14 years of crashing the economy can be undone in one year, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. This Government will stick to their policies and grow the economy.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Livermore]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, I begin by extending my thanks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the detailed and thoughtful consideration of this draft order in its report published last month; I will respond fully to the points raised by the committee. I also take this opportunity to welcome the support for these reforms from consumer groups, from firms offering buy now, pay later products, and from the Official Opposition, who first initiated the process which has led to this order.

The purpose of the legislation before your Lordships’ Committee today is to protect consumers and provide certainty and stability for business. I will begin by providing a brief overview of the issue which this order seeks to address before outlining the steps the Government are taking to mitigate these harms.

More than 10 million people in the UK now use buy now, pay later products, which allow consumers to pay for goods and services through interest-free instalments over a period of 12 months or less. Fintechs such as Klarna, PayPal and Clearpay typically partner with merchants, predominantly online retailers, which offer their buy now, pay later options to customers at checkout. When used responsibly, these products can help users manage their finances and make purchases more affordable, compared with using traditional, interest-bearing forms of credit such as credit cards and personal loans.

However, unlike these traditional forms of credit, interest-free buy now, pay later products are not currently regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. This is because they fall under an exemption which was originally designed to help small businesses offer instalment payment plans to their customers: for example, a gym offering a 12-month payment plan.

The 2021 Woolard review, which investigated recent innovations in the consumer credit market, highlighted several potential risks facing people who use unregulated buy now, pay later products.

First, there are no rules on what information firms must give their customers. Too many people are left unclear about what they owe and when they need to repay it—and some do not even realise they have taken out credit at all. The Financial Conduct Authority previously found that nearly a fifth of buy now, pay later users were not aware they would be charged a late fee for missed payments from fee-charging providers.

Secondly, buy now, pay later firms are not required to check whether people can afford these products. This means that credit is being given to those who may not be able to pay it back.

Finally, firms are not required to check what an individual already owes. As a result, debt can quickly mount up when people take out several buy now, pay later products at once. For example, research from Citizens Advice found that almost a third of buy now, pay later users it surveyed had borrowed from elsewhere to pay off their buy now, pay later debts.

The Government believe that action must be taken to address these issues and protect consumers. That is why, under this draft order, buy now, pay later products offered by third-party lenders such as Klarna, PayPal, and Clearpay will be brought into regulation under the Financial Conduct Authority.

Under the new regulatory regime, firms will have to carry out robust affordability checks before lending to make sure that consumers are protected from taking on debt they cannot afford. Consumers will receive clear and transparent information about buy now, pay later products, including what support is available if they face financial difficulty.

In addition, for the first time, consumers will have the right to take their complaints about buy now, pay later firms to the Financial Ombudsman Service, guaranteeing access to fair and independent resolution if problems arise. These are rights and protections that users of other regulated credit products enjoy already; it is only right that users of buy now, pay later products receive them too.

The Government acknowledge concerns raised in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report that buy now, pay later products offered directly by merchants will not fall under the new regulatory regime. We examined this issue carefully before publishing the order before your Lordships’ Committee. Protecting small businesses from regulatory overreach was central to our approach. Regulating buy now, pay later products offered directly by merchants threatens to capture simple, interest-free instalment plans, such as the gym membership example that I referenced earlier. Regulating these arrangements, which small businesses routinely offer to their customers, would create unjustified disruption for countless small businesses and their customers, imposing regulatory burden without sufficient evidence of consumer harm to support it. The Government are also confident that there are robust existing protections in place to safeguard consumers using merchant-offered buy now, pay later products; current consumer protection laws covering advertising, financial promotions and unfair trading practices apply to these products already.

Finally, our assessment is that it is inherently unlikely that many merchants will offer their own products because of the associated credit risk and the accrual of new liabilities on their balance sheet. Instead, we believe that many would be minded to create a subsidiary to supply the credit or to partner with separate credit providers—both of which arrangements would fall under the scope of these changes. We will, however, continue to monitor this market closely with the Financial Conduct Authority and through our regular industry engagement, and, if we see evidence of potential consumer harm, we will not hesitate to act.

The second key aspect of this order relates to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report questions whether the Government should consider whether definitions in that Act can be amended to distinguish between low-risk buy now, pay later products offered by small businesses, such as private gym memberships, and buy now, pay later products offered by large-scale merchants. The Government agree that this is an important issue, which is why the forthcoming consultation on Consumer Credit Act reform will seek input from stakeholders to ensure that any potential changes we make to these definitions are appropriate.

I want also to touch briefly on the other provisions in the order as they relate to this Act. The order before us will ensure that users of buy now, pay later products will have protection under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act, making it easier to receive a refund if a supplier breaks a contract or misleads the customer. Under the current laws of contract, customers can seek compensation for defective goods or services only from the supplier for breach of contract. Our changes will strengthen consumer rights by making buy now, pay later lenders equally responsible for problems with purchases when they have provided the credit. This will give consumers a key statutory right enjoyed by users of currently regulated credit products.

Separately, consumers will also now receive clear and relevant information about buy now, pay later products, including details about what they owe and when payments are due. The new requirements will be set by Financial Conduct Authority rules, rather than the Consumer Credit Act. This change reflects feedback from both industry and consumer groups that current provisions on information disclosure do not suit interest-free, short-term buy now, pay later products. Although these changes will apply only to buy now, pay later products, the Government have also launched a consultation on reform of the Consumer Credit Act itself, which we are committed to doing at pace; the consultation includes proposals that would see the wider consumer credit industry benefit from modernised information disclosure requirements, too.

I turn finally to the impact of these changes on firms offering buy now, pay later products. The Government’s intention is that, while the changes outlined today will help protect consumers, they will also benefit providers. For years, buy now, pay later firms have faced regulatory uncertainty, stalling their growth and investment in the UK. This order ends that uncertainty and allows firms to innovate and invest in the UK. To ensure a smooth transition to the new regime, firms will also be able to continue lending under a temporary permissions regime while their Financial Conduct Authority authorisation is under review.

Twelve months after this order is made, the new regulatory regime for these products will come into force. In that time, the Financial Conduct Authority will consult on and finalise the rules that will govern buy now, pay later lending. The changes laid out in the draft order are fair, responsible and proportionate, and we are determined to deliver them promptly to protect consumers and to provide certainty for businesses. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order and for his thorough summary. It is an important measure, and the Committee is surprisingly thin today.

Borrowing with a defined repayment period is a long-standing practice, with many well-established advantages that most of us have benefited from: for example, in respect of mortgages on our homes. It is a good thing that innovation—buy now, pay later—has developed the lending market but, as always, we need to have an eye on the potential downsides. In this case, that refers above all to the possibility of unsophisticated borrowers getting into financial trouble, probably because of an inaccurate assessment by lenders of the likelihood of any loan being repaid. I accept that in such cases a degree of protection may be justified. That is the philosophical and economic background.

However, there is a need for balance so that regulation does not simply close down the borrowing arrangements, which will make life harder for hard-pressed consumers and will risk pushing them into the hands of loan sharks. Another concern is the impact on small businesses, whether in financial services or retail, which we need to protect from overburdensome regulation. The spark of enterprise risks being snuffed out by this Government if they are not very careful about how they treat the smaller operators. Excessive red tape will simply reduce the services available to consumers and increase costs and prices.

Over the past few years, consumer spending habits in the UK have undergone a significant change. There has been a surge in the use of buy now, pay later schemes, with 14 million consumers recorded as using the agreements in the six months leading to January 2023. This is, however, still a much smaller market than credit cards. We recognise that there are growing concerns about consumer harm in the sector, with 44% of frequent users of such schemes overindebted in 2022, according to an FCA survey. Misleading promotions, lack of affordability assessments and the possibility of accumulating high debts are examples of the potential harms identified for consumers.

Under the previous Government, the 2021 Woolard review proposed the urgent regulation of buy now, pay later payments, but we did not have time to carry this through to completion, so I welcome today’s statutory instrument, which builds on this legacy and addresses lending practices that could harm consumers if they remain unchecked. The proposed order will require buy now, pay later product lenders to be authorised by the FCA, which will give consumers a wider range of protections, including access to the Financial Ombudsman Service for redress.

The instrument also requires firms to carry out affordability checks on borrowers and offer clear product information to consumers to prevent unaffordable borrowing. The proposed order rightly offers more protection for consumers, but we must also be sensitive to business voices operating in the buy now, pay later market. We must be conscious that being subject to FCA rules is not a walk in the park. I speak as a former non-executive director of a challenger bank. So I would like the Minister to explain how the FCA plans to develop and implement the buy now, pay later rules over the next 12 months and who they will affect. For example, would Klarna or Clearpay do all the consumer checks, or would they also pose a burden on the retailer—Boots, for example, or a specialist online retailer of the kind the Minister mentioned?

I also need an assurance that the regulator will have the capacity, and indeed the will, to approve the three significant suppliers and the others that are caught by the new regulations, and to do so comfortably within the 12-month timeframe. It will take time to develop the rules on creditworthiness and affordability, and a year is not long. In my experience, the FCA is much more concerned about its consumer duties than keeping business running and innovating. In the helpful impact assessment on this order, the compliance costs are assessed at some £19 million to £32 million over 10 years. This estimate seems far too low to me, from my experience of dealing with FCA regulation in three different entities. Of course we need to do the right thing, but the regulatory and legal costs in financial services such as these continue to mount, and that then hits innovation and growth.

So I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister on this score and an undertaking that there will be continued engagement between the industry and the Financial Ombudsman Service, because that can also be a vehicle for delay and inconsistency. To put the change in perspective, I would also appreciate an update on the current level of over-indebtedness by frequent users—the worrying figure of 44% that I quoted from 2022—and an indication of the proportion of the total number and value of buy now, pay later borrowers that they represent. I am interested in how many indebted purchasers there are and how significant in number they are in the big scheme of things.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, while we support these regulations in the interest of consumers, we urge the Government to address the concerns that I have raised today and ensure that the FCA and FOS work constructively with the industry to ensure a smooth transition and to minimise bureaucracy. We also seek an assurance that they will provide us with the outcome of their further consultations as soon as possible and in time to influence the future direction of travel.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments and questions and for her support for these measures which, as she says, build on what the previous Government began. She rightly set out the importance of buy now, pay later products and pointed out the potential downsides, which we absolutely agree on, regarding borrowers getting into trouble and the need to prevent that. She also talked about the need for balance. She is right that the action that we take should not in any way close down an important route for consumers.

As I said in my opening remarks, these measures have been welcomed by consumer groups. Although these products can help people manage their finances by spreading the cost of purchases, they can put consumers at risk, particularly from unaffordable lending. The FCA will be able to apply appropriate, proportionate rules on assessing creditworthiness and affordability for buy now, pay later lending, so I am confident that it will not unduly close down these routes. It has been welcomed by the providers and consumer groups. The Government are committed to proportionate regulation.

On that point, the noble Baroness went on to talk about the impact on small businesses. Again, they have welcomed this measure to avoid the overly burdensome approach and the regulatory creep she spoke about. That is exactly why protecting small businesses from regulatory overreach was central to our approach. Regulating these products, offered directly by merchants, threatens to capture the simple gym membership example that we talked about. I am happy to give her those assurances on the approach and the way the FCA will approach that.

The noble Baroness asked a number of questions about the FCA and the next steps on regulation. Regulation will commence 12 months after this legislation is made. The FCA will consult after the legislation is finalised. The consultation will include the FCA’s proposed conduct rules for regulating buy now, pay later. The FCA will then consider stakeholder feedback and decide whether it needs to amend its proposed approach before making its final rules. Firms will need a period in which to digest and prepare for the final rules before they come into force. The FCA is keen to give industry as much opportunity as possible to prepare its systems and processes before the final rules come into effect. The FCA intends to publish its policy statement and final rules in early 2026.

The noble Baroness asked about capacity and my confidence in the FCA. Obviously, that is complete. The FCA is an independent, non-governmental organisation. Its independence is vital to its role. However, it is fully accountable to the Government and Parliament for how it exercises its functions. This accountability is critical to ensuring it advances the objectives given to it by Parliament and is performing optimally. Ministers in the Treasury have a very close working relationship with the FCA. We work together very effectively to solve problems and are able to exchange views frankly.

The noble Baroness asked about the second consultation process. Although the consultation is split into two phases, the Government intend to implement the reforms via one legislative vehicle when parliamentary time allows. Once the legislation is in place, the FCA will consult on a policy approach and draft rules for a reformed regime.

The noble Baroness also asked about exemptions, which I think I touched on. As I said in my opening remarks, we absolutely have the intention to keep these under review and if further action is required, we will not hesitate to act. I think I have covered all the points that she raised.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The one point the noble Lord has not really touched on is growth and innovation, but I take it from the points he normally makes that he sees this sitting within that context. I think the Chancellor sent a letter to the FCA some months ago encouraging an approach to growth in the way it regulates. So he is right that it is independent and does its own thing but, equally, it is important that it minimises bureaucracy and tries to be efficient and helpful, because it plays such an important part in the economy and with business, but also in protecting consumers.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I completely take what the noble Baroness says; my apologies for not covering that in my initial response. The intention with these specific measures is to be proportionate. That is why we responded in the way that we did to the scrutiny committee, for example. These measures should boost growth and investment. There has been uncertainty in the sector for too long and we are now correcting that.

The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the wider response to the regulation. In her first Mansion House speech, the Chancellor set out very clearly that she wanted to see us regulating for growth rather than risk, and for the pendulum to swing slightly further back the other way. The Chancellor has her second Mansion House speech next week; I am sure she will have more to say on that point then.

Motion agreed.

Unpaid Tax

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how much tax they estimate is unpaid each year, and what steps they are taking in response.

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

My Lords, the tax gap is estimated to be 5.3% of total theoretical tax liabilities. At the Budget last year, the Chancellor announced the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap. The Government then built on this at the Spring Statement, setting out plans to make it easier for taxpayers to pay the right amount of tax for a modern and digital tax system. These measures will raise an additional £7.5 billion of tax revenue each year by the end of the Parliament.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will be aware that in May the National Audit Office reported on collecting the right tax from wealthy individuals. It noted that

“underlying levels of non-compliance among the wealthy … could be much greater”

than anticipated and that, based on the most recent figures available, HMRC’s “wealthy team” devoted just 5% of its casework to investigating offshore non-compliance. Given that, what timelines will the Government set for HMRC for tackling non-compliance by the wealthy, particularly surrounding offshore assets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. As part of the action we are taking to close the tax gap, HMRC is recruiting an additional 5,500 compliance officers by the end of the Parliament; 400 of them will work specifically on wealthy offshore risks. HMRC has also created a new team focused specifically on tackling offshore non-compliance cases and is expanding its counterfraud capability, targeting those who facilitate wealthy individuals hiding money offshore. In the report that my noble friend mentions, the National Audit Office recognises that this Government are scaling up compliance activity to tackle serious offshore non-compliance and have committed further funding to do so. Looking ahead, we will take further action to close the tax gap; we have published consultations on strengthening HMRC’s ability to act against tax advisers who facilitate non-compliance and to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance. Finally, my noble friend asked about timescales. We will set out further plans in the Budget and will shortly publish a road map setting out HMRC’s strategic ambitions and the transformation required to achieve them.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response—heaven knows, after last week the Government will have to raise a hell of a lot of tax to compensate for the extra expense they are incurring. On offshore tax avoidance, he will be aware that 3 million parcels a week arrive in the UK from offshore suppliers containing goods below £135 in value and therefore exempt from VAT. It is estimated that roughly £1 billion of additional VAT—that is not even in the tax gap—could be recouped. A number of actors, including RAVAS, have ideas on how to cure this. Will the Minister agree to a meeting with the Treasury and HMRC, which keep batting us away, to discuss how we can stop this tax gap?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I know that he has been in touch with my colleague the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury and has discussed having a meeting. I am sure that he will be in touch in due course.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this is Whistleblowing Awareness Week. The Minister will know that HMRC, in its attempts to claw back large amounts of tax fraud, has announced a new scheme of rewards and incentives to bring whistleblowers into discussion with HMRC and to pursue fraudsters. However, there has been very little information about the structure around this, the mechanisms in place and the portals. Can he update us on what is meant to be the central pillar of the new attack on fraud?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making me aware of the awareness week. She says that this is the central pillar of our strategy; it is one of them. Most importantly, we are recruiting an additional 5,500 compliance officers, which is the central piece in what we are seeking to achieve. On updates, if there is anything further to say, I will be happy to write to her.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, back in February the Public Accounts Committee accused HMRC of not being

“sufficiently curious about the true scale of tax evasion”

in this country, suggesting that the tax authority’s estimate of £5.5 billion a year may be a significant underestimate. Does the Minister share the committee’s concern?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

After the measures we took in the Budget and the Spring Statement, no one could possibly say that we are not sufficiently resourcing the fight against the tax gap. As I said in my original Answer to my noble friend, the National Audit Office recognises in its report that this Government are scaling up compliance activity to tackle serious offshore non-compliance and have committed further funding to do so. It also recognises many of the measures we are taking, including, as I said earlier, significant additional investment in compliance officers by the end of the Parliament. The noble Lord will recognise that this is the most ambitious package to close the tax gap ever; we have committed an additional £660 million each year for measures to do so and by the end of the Parliament we will raise an additional £7.5 billion a year.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not disgraceful that some of the richest people in Britain get honours despite registering for tax purposes in places such as Monaco? As well as that, they are usually first in the queue for tax payouts if they want a subsidy for their business. Is it not time that we took a tougher line on these freeloaders?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not think the honours system is for me to comment on. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that we are taking the action I have already described, and we also intend to take further action to close the tax gap. At the Spring Statement, we published consultations on a wide range of issues, including widening the use of third-party data to help HMRC reduce error; strengthening HMRC’s ability to act against those tax advisors who facilitate non-compliance; and closing in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance.

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

My Lords, will the Minister give us an assurance that the Treasury will pursue Members, former Members and Members on leave of absence from this House with the same vigour as it pursues everyone else? In relation to one notorious tax dodger, will the Treasury accept the cash delivered in a JCB?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is not for me to comment on individual tax affairs, but of course HMRC will treat every taxpayer fairly.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, in pursuing tax evasion, the question of information from our dependent territories is key. There was an agreement between the Treasury and the dependent territories on the provision of fuller information about ownership of assets there as they relate to tax evasion here. We are well aware that a number of dependent territories— particularly the British Virgin Islands—have not yet implemented that agreement. Are the British Government pushing them to do so?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, those discussions are ongoing.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, at the end of 2024, it was reported that HMRC injected an extra £300 million into its compliance and fraud operations. Estimates suggest that these teams now have nearly 28,000 staff—which probably includes some of the 5,500 the Minister mentioned. What is the estimated cost benefit of this significant investment? Will the Minister agree to report to Parliament on the cost and on the tax actually recovered on a regular and consistent basis? We all want to see the success of this initiative.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We have committed an average of £660 million each year on measures to do so. By the end of the Parliament, that will raise an additional £5.7 billion per year. That is quite a good cost-benefit ratio. Each Budget will report progress against that.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, between 2010 and 2024, HMRC failed to collect around £500 billion of tax. I therefore welcome the additional investment, but I am really concerned about the trajectory. Page 95 of the spending review shows that the HMRC budget for 2025-26 is to be £6.8 billion, rising to £7.3 billion for 2026-27. After that, there is a real-terms cut: the budget will be £7.1 billion for 2027-28, and £6.9 billion for 2028-29. Does the Minister agree that a real cut to the HMRC budget is not conducive to a sustained fight against organised tax avoidance?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

What is conducive is the most ambitious package ever to close the tax gap, raising £6.5 billion in additional tax revenue per year by 2029-30 and an additional £1 billion as a result of the measures in the Spring Statement. The spending review fully funded HMRC to deliver on those commitments.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer, for their comments and questions, and for their broad support and welcome for this strategy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, began in her non-partisan mode, which I will try to replicate if I can. She talked first about the low rate of investment, and she is absolutely right. When we came into power, we saw the lowest rate of private sector investment as a share of GDP in the G7; we clearly have to turn that around. We saw public sector investment repeatedly cut, which is one of the reasons why we changed the fiscal rules in the way that we did, to incentivise capital investment and try to protect it from being cut to subsidise day-to-day spending. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her support for that investment and for the plan that is in front of us.

I am grateful to her for welcoming the maintenance fund. As we speak, there is a £46 billion backlog in the public sector maintenance of our schools, hospitals, prisons and courts. As part of this plan, we are putting £5 billion into the maintenance backlog for the NHS, £3 billion into our schools by 2030, and £600 million into courts and prisons. That is really important, so I am pleased that there is cross-party support for it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about governance and delivery capacity. I completely agree with her on the point about delivering value for money. Obviously, the strategy is not just about giving long-term certainty of investment, in terms of the numbers—she is quite right to say that—but what sits beneath them. The strategy is about trying to do things differently and to make sure that we get the strategic planning behind the investment that we are making.

That is the insight that sits behind the creation of NISTA, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. It brings together under one roof infrastructure expertise combined with the policy and strategy insight of the National Infrastructure Commission and the delivery specialism of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority. Every two years, it will do a report into the delivery of this strategy. It will give Ministers real-time advice and expertise on specific projects. I hope that that goes a long way to solving some of the issues that the noble Baroness talked about.

The noble Baroness also talked about where the money is coming from. The announcements, as part of the spending review envelope, were fully funded and fully costed as part of that process and are within the current fiscal envelope. Beyond that, we have said that we will guarantee that investment spending will grow by at least inflation for the period beyond the spending view for a total of 10 years, which gives people certainty about the level of infrastructure investment that we are making.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about PPPs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also talked extensively about this. I agree with a lot of what she said and respect her great expertise on this matter. She talked about the criteria for success, and lessons clearly need to be learned from our previous experience of PFIs and PPPs. The Government are absolutely committed to that. There are several reports now available to us; the NAO’s lessons learned report, for example, provides vital information on what we can do differently and can do better.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that, once you apply those criteria, it severely limits the number of projects for which you can use PPPs. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I do not think that this is about huge, widespread use. We clearly want a widespread degree of private sector capital coming in and financing infrastructure, and we want to continue to invest alongside the private sector and the private sector to step up and fund things.

We see a role for PPPs but in a very limited way and where their role will clearly be appropriate. We have said specifically that we will explore the feasibility of using new PPPs—learning lessons and applying the right criteria—for taxpayer-funded projects in very limited circumstances where they could represent value for money. We have given two specific examples where we think they could do that. One good example is Euston—the HS2 station—where we will investigate the use of PPP models for user-funded infrastructure. The other is the Lower Thames Crossing, where, again, we think there is the potential for the criteria that the noble Baroness mentioned to apply. There are a limited number of examples but those are two where there is a clear case to be made.

On housing, I completely agree that 1.5 million new homes is a stretching target. It absolutely remains our commitment and we think we are on course towards achieving it. We put a record amount of funding—the greatest for several generations—into social housing. The noble Baroness is clearly right that the potential occupiers want that housing now, which is why that funding has gone in. She wanted reassurance, and I can say that we firmly believe that we are on course towards that housing target.

Both noble Baronesses talked about skills, and I completely agree. It is good that we are in the spirit of consensus and cross-party thinking here. Obviously, with these commitments, it is absolutely right that we need people to build the things that we want built. Clearly, we can always do more, but we have made a strong start. We have made a record commitment to invest in skills—£1.2 billion of additional investment per year by 2028-29 to support current and future workforce needs.

I know that we are in a cross-party mood, but I have to reflect the fact that the degree of underfunding that we inherited was substantial. We had to put in significant amounts of money—billions of pounds—just to stand still and just to plug the gap that existed between needed provision and the funding that was there. Having to plug that gap limits the extent to which we can move forward.

However, we have provided funding to support over 1.3 million 16 to 19 year-olds to access high-quality training—some 65,000 additional learners per year by 2029. The spending review has delivered £625 million to train up to 60,000 construction workers. In the industrial strategy yesterday, we announced that we will introduce new short courses for priority skills as part of the growth and skills levy, continue to roll out foundation apprenticeships and deliver a targeted package for engineering skills. We have specific packages for engineering and construction, both of which are priority occupations in the infrastructure strategy and the industrial strategy.

How do we choose the investment? We always talk about growth, and I think noble Lords can see that much of this investment is targeted towards the sectors that will, I hope, really drive our growth agenda—transport, energy and housing just to name three.

On the questions about London from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I cannot give any commitments today on the future financing model, but I completely share her support for London and her reflection of it as the golden goose. Future investment in London will be central to driving the economy.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I join the cross-party consensus on the issue of skills. The Minister referred to the 16 to 19 year-old skills requirement age group. Does he also accept that, if we are going to successfully get investment into sectors such as the energy sector, which is a key part of the development the Government have in mind, the university sector must also get the resources that are needed? In view of the cutbacks that have taken place in the university sector over recent years, can the Government, in co-ordination with the devolved Governments in Cardiff and Edinburgh, look particularly at this sector in order to get the resources in? We need action now. It will take three to five years before those people come out the other end, and we need them desperately to drive the scheme forward.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I completely agree with what the noble Lord said about the importance of that sector. He mentioned the example of the energy sector and, as I said, we have, in the industrial strategy, made an investment into engineering skills, which are particularly important in that sector. I hear what he is saying and we will keep driving towards what he wants us to achieve.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister may recall that I spent six years at No. 10 as Tony Blair’s strategy adviser. I spent a year of my time there, with the team of officials, looking at national transport infrastructure—road and rail. We quickly identified that we have by far the worst road and rail infrastructure of any major country; it was very easy to demonstrate. We went further and looked back—I cannot recall the precise term; I think it was 70 years, although it might have been slightly less—at national investment in infrastructure of all kinds over that period. It was the same story: we spent a smaller proportion of our GDP than any major country. Under both main parties, again and again, on every occasion when the economy went into slight reverse, national investment in infrastructure was cut back. Will it be different this time? Does the Minister know what proportion of GDP over this 10-year period is implied by this plan? If he does not, perhaps he will write to us.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I can definitely say yes to one of the noble Lord’s questions, which I am pleased to be able to do. He talked about making sure that this investment is not cut back according to the economic weather, as it were. I completely agree with what he said about how previous Governments did that. That is why the fiscal rules are as they are. That creates the space to ensure that capital investment can continue and is not used to patch up day-to-day spending. That is important for us to appreciate.

The noble Lord is absolutely right that there has been too little investment in transport infrastructure in the past. We have talked before in debates such as this about the importance of connectivity to economic growth and the agglomeration effects that you get from joining up cities with each other, and joining up towns to cities. This ensures that people can live close to where they want to work and can travel to work and, on the skills conversation we have just been having, gets skills into the right place. There are huge growth benefits from transport spending. Some of the money that we are putting in—£15.6 billion into the city regions, £2.3 billion for the local transport grant and £2.2 billion of funding for Transport for London—is vital to what we were just saying. On the percentage of GDP, I do not have that number to hand, but I will write to the noble Lord.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s 10-year infrastructure strategy, and the industrial strategy published yesterday, are essential for future growth. If I had to single out one item in the 10-year strategy, it would be to develop our sovereign compute capacity for the future. I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships’ House, which is looking right now at the problems of scaling up science and technology companies. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that the National Wealth Fund will be able to provide vital early-stage development support for companies, because we want them to scale up in Britain for the benefit of Britain?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful for what my noble friend said. I share his enthusiasm for what we are doing in the innovation landscape, such as putting a record high of £22.6 billion into R&D as part of the spending review. It is exciting that yesterday the industrial strategy talked about allocating £2 billion for AI and £2.8 billion for advanced manufacturing. This is all incredibly important.

What my noble friend said is absolutely part of what the National Wealth Fund is for. My noble friend talked about start-ups and scale-ups. The British Business Bank now has a total financial capacity of £25.6 billion, which will result in a two-thirds increase in support for innovative UK businesses compared with 2025-26, crowding in tens of billions of pounds more in private capital The National Wealth Fund will play that role, but so too will the British Business Bank. That was one of the key announcements in yesterday’s industrial strategy.

[Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I shall do my best to comply with the spirit of cross-party consensus day. I should first declare from the register that I am chairman of Make UK, which has more than 20,000 member companies in manufacturing and infrastructure. I commend the Government on this 10-year infrastructure plan and yesterday’s industrial strategy because I did a review for the previous Government on foreign direct investment. Lack of consistency of policy was the number one item, and the others were connection to the grid, planning and other delays.

I want to ask the Minister about monitoring implementation. For the main industrial strategy, the Government have quite correctly set up an industrial strategy council where each sector—life sciences, advanced manufacturing, et cetera—has groups to monitor the implementation of the industrial strategy. The infrastructure plan is very complex; it includes skills, access to finance and, of course, energy and very large things. What mechanism will be used to independently monitor its implementation?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the positive things that he said. I pay tribute to him and to Make UK for the work that they do. Clearly, the skills conversation that we just had is vital in that sector. Make UK always makes the point to me about the vital importance of engineering skills, so I hope that that is welcome.

The noble Lord did indeed do his review into foreign direct investment. I hope he does not think that it was just for the previous Government; we still talk about it now in this Government. A lot of the recommendations that he made in that review are things that we have been trying to take forward in this Government. That is a good example of the cross-party working that we have been discussing today.

The noble Lord is right that the industrial strategy will be taken forward by the industrial strategy council; that will be put on a permanent footing, which I think is important. His question is about the equivalent for this strategy. That is the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—which I was talking about. It will monitor the strategy and help the Government to implement it. It will do two-year refreshes of this strategy to make sure that it is up to date and doing what it needs to do. Crucially, it will provide real-terms advice to Ministers when it comes to individual projects to make sure that we have the expertise that we need at our fingertips to be able to implement them.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome this report. Of course, after decades of underinvestment, it is essential to ensure that our country can operate appropriately.

I will ask the Minister about infrastructure and adaption and resilience to climate change. Our climate is changing before our very eyes. In a number of places in this report there are vague promises to do things, not firm commitments. To pick up one example, although we welcome the £7.9 billion of capital for a new 10-year flood investment programme, the report says that the Government will merely “explore” setting a long-term, multiyear target for flood risk management in line with prior recommendations made by the NAO and the NIC. Will the Government go further on these things, recognise the speed at which climate change is happening, and put more effort into ensuring that we have the best policies in place?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Earl on the importance of investment in net zero and measures to tackle climate change. From a growth perspective, it is not one or the other for those investments; they go hand in hand.

I do not quite agree with the noble Earl’s view on the vagueness of these commitments. We are putting real money behind real projects: £14.2 billion into nuclear; £9.4 billion into carbon capture and storage; £80 million of investment in ports to support floating offshore wind; and £13.2 billion for the warm homes plan. This is a huge amount of investment into real concrete action to move us forward. We were talking before about getting people on to public transport—for example, in relation to take-up of EVs. Action is going on across the board on the measures that he talked about. I am grateful to him for his support on that.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

I very much welcome the strategy that the Minister relayed to your Lordships’ House. However, I refer him to the decision yesterday in the Northern Ireland High Court, which struck down the Northern Ireland Executive’s major flagship project from the Department for Infrastructure—a £1.7 billion upgrade to the A5 to save lives and improve economic connections throughout Northern Ireland and with the Irish Republic. It was struck down because it was contrary to another part of the Northern Ireland Executive’s overall strategy programme for government. Is this something on which the new NISTA, which sits within the Treasury, could assist the Northern Ireland Executive? They certainly need help from somewhere if they are going to be able to deliver major infrastructure projects in the light of this very serious judgment.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the question and for bringing that to my attention—I did not know about that decision. I will very happily go away and look at that. We have tried to engage extensively with the devolved Governments to ensure that there is strong alignment between the strategy and what they are doing. We will continue to do that as we move into implementation, for example through the Council of the Nations and Regions. I am happy to go and talk to my colleague the Chief Secretary about how NISTA can play a role to secure that. We have put substantial amounts of capital investment into Northern Ireland as a result of the spending review. Clearly, we want to make sure that that is spent in the right way and achieves the right objectives, so I will very happily take that back for him.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement from the Minister about a much more joined-up and rational approach to infrastructure. It has been long called for and is very much welcomed. I also welcome NISTA’s commitment to ensuring that infrastructure developers are going to take account of biodiversity protection and delivery. I was delighted when NISTA’s predecessor discovered climate change, and the fact that it has now discovered biodiversity is even more welcome.

I also am very pleased to see that the Government are committed to the land use framework approach to spatial issues. But a fair number of existing infrastructure schemes are already in progress and decisions are being made on a day-by-day basis, and government departments across the piece are now preparing spatial strategies of all sorts. We have housing spatial strategies, transport spatial strategies, energy spatial strategies—everybody has a spatial strategy, but we have not yet got the land use framework in place that gives them join-up and integration. So when do the Government intend to make their hand clear on the land use framework approach? I am concerned, as I said, that by the time it arrives and is then implemented at national, regional and local level, it will be too late for many of the decisions on infrastructure that are currently being made.

Secondly—and more of this anon, tomorrow—in my view, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill does not take a sufficiently clear approach to a land use framework approach. In fact, any concept of land use framework is singularly absent in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which seems not to be as joined up as this admirable strategy is. Perhaps the Minister would care to respond on that.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her support for NISTA and the spatial planning elements of that. I do think that the spatial side of that is really important, as she says, to make sure that infrastructure is not just built in isolation but focuses on building communities and looks across the piece and integrates national, regional and sector-level planning. I do not have any news for her today on the land use framework, and I certainly hear what she says about the Planning Bill. I do not have anything to add today to what is already known, but I will make sure that, when we do, she is one of the first people to know.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the 10-year strategy. It has managed to put a smile on the Minister’s face, which is very welcome indeed. In the interests of transparency and clarity, can I ask him what the route for the trans-Pennine route upgrade will be and what consultation there will be? There seemed to be some confusion in an interview last week from the Minister responsible as to what the route would be. It would be very helpful to know. It will be a very welcome upgrade. I regret that it has not taken precedence over HS2 or HS3, but we are where we are. Also, can he comment on the implications of clean energy? To be fully understood, it is going to take 10% of farmland and 10% of fisheries out of production. Have the Government considered what the impact on farming and fisheries is going to be?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the smile; it is always most welcome. On the route of the trans-Pennine route upgrade, she spoke about the importance of transparency. I think the best thing will be to write to her and set it out in full, so that there is no misunderstanding.

In terms of farming, I hope she welcomes the £2.7 billion per year in sustainable farming and nature recovery. I think that is a very substantial investment in the things she spoke about.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, there have been a number of references to NISTA, the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority. The Statement says:

“Based in the Treasury, NISTA brings oversight of infrastructure strategy and delivery together, and integrates assurance, design and delivery assessments”.


The Treasury is not the expert in transport, energy or social housing infrastructure. Many Members of your Lordships’ House often lament the dictatorship of the Treasury over other government decisions. Is this not a further concentration of power within one department in government, when actually we need the people with the expertise and knowledge to have the oversight, not this concentration in the Treasury?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Well, the noble Baroness might not expect me to agree with her on that; I think the more Treasury, the better, from my point of view. So, no, I disagree with her, but of course NISTA is there to work for the whole Government and not just the Treasury. It has to be based somewhere and it makes sense for it to be based in the Treasury, given the Treasury’s responsibility for the 10-year infrastructure strategy, which it will be overseeing. Of course, NISTA’s expertise will be available to Ministers right across government.

[Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Treasury on this plan, which is well thought through. If the economy is going to grow, we have to ensure that public investment grows faster than public consumption. That is reflected in the Government’s plans. But, like my noble friend Lord Birt, I worked for Governments of both main parties who announced investment plans with great fanfares and good intentions, only to jettison them the first time they got into difficulty. That happened in 1976, 1992, 2008 and 2016. The Minister mentioned that fiscal rules this time will see us right but, as he knows, fiscal rules come and go. Can he assure the House, especially the sceptics among us, that, should the Government get into financial difficulties, they will protect investment, even if that means bearing down on public consumption?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord—I was going to say “my noble friend”—for his question. The fiscal rules are non-negotiable, as he will know. We have put them in place for exactly the reasons he described. Too often in the past, public investment has been cut to patch up holes in day-to-day spending. The reason we are setting out this 10-year plan now is to give certainty and stability to the investment horizon, and we will protect that investment going forward.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly go back to a subject I have raised several times with the Minister before—PPPs. I welcome pages 44 and 45 in the report, and I also share the interesting views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer and look forward to the report that is coming. I am content to leave the issues with the Treasury. Perhaps the Treasury might expand its vision a little bit wider and, when we come to review the future PPPs, we might think about involving the public in them and not limiting private investment simply to big capital. There is money around among the public. People are prepared to invest. We ought to be more open-minded about it and perhaps look at some of the experiences of the past. There will be money there for us and it will be committed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his support for this. I am pleased to give him some good news as part of this, because I know he has spoken extensively about the use of PPPs and is a strong advocate for that. As I said, the Government will explore the feasibility of using new PPP models for taxpayer-funded projects in the limited circumstances I talked about. As NISTA’s work goes forward and develops these new PPPs, it will be through engagement with departments and industry. I hope some of that engagement will include the groups my noble friend referred to.

Business Rates Reform

Lord Livermore Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I refer the House to my registered interests, including that I run two business improvement districts.

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

My Lords, the Government are creating a fairer business rates system that protects high streets and supports investment. We do not anticipate that these business rates reforms will have any direct impact on business improvement districts.

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Business improvement districts—BIDs—are vital to local economies and high street regeneration, and rely heavily on the business rates system. Will my noble friend commit to consulting them directly through bodies such as Association of Town & City Management before making any future reforms? As government services move more fully online, will he back online voting for bid ballots in order to keep the process accessible, efficient and fit for the digital age?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question and pay tribute to his work and his expertise in this area. As he knows, business improvement districts play an important role in improving the local trading environment in our high streets and town centres, investing over £154 million each year in their local areas.

On the consultation on future reforms, my honourable friend the Exchequer Secretary, together with Treasury officials, has engaged extensively with stakeholders to codesign a fairer, more modern business rates system. I know that the Association of Town & City Management, which my noble friend mentioned, has been an important part of that. Later this summer, we will publish an interim report that sets out a clear direction of travel, with further policy detail to follow in the Budget.

As for online voting, in the English Devolution White Paper, the Government recognised the importance of ensuring high levels of turnout. My colleagues at MHCLG will come back with further proposals in due course.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact of changing business rates here in London on the West End? High Streets UK has labelled the Bill a bit of a disaster and said it will be bad for growth, bad for investment and bad for jobs, and puts too much burden on Britain’s flagship high streets.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. As he will know, the current business rates system, with temporary reliefs for retail, hospitality and leisure, creates a yearly cliff edge for the sector, disincentivises investment, creates uncertainty and places an undue burden on our high streets. Exactly because of and recognising that, to support our high streets, the Government announced at the Budget last October our intention to introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with a rateable value below £500,000 from 2026-27. The rates will be set at the Budget this autumn so that the Government can take account of the revaluation outcomes and the broader economic and fiscal context in their decision-making.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister say which of the recommendations set out in the 2023 report on business improvement districts have been implemented? In particular, what consideration have the Government given to reinstating the BID loan fund? What plans are there to set up more property owner BIDs outside London, as the report recommended? Are there any plans to assist with the setting up of BIDs in regions in the north and east, where they are scarce?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. On this Government’s proposals for improving BIDs, the English Devolution White Paper, which I mentioned, set out our intention to strengthen BIDs. We will come forward with further proposals to do so in due course.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, over the years I have run a number of small businesses. In England, any small business with a rateable value of £12,000 or less is entitled to a 100% rebate. Do the Government have any plan to increase that threshold from £12,000?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We have set out very clearly that we want to go further to modernise the system, over and above the tax cuts that I set out for small properties, exactly for the reasons my noble friend sets out. We have published a discussion paper setting out priority areas for reform that highlights further areas, including how to incentivise investment. Later this summer, we will publish an interim report setting out a clear direction of travel. We will then set out further policy detail in the Budget this autumn.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, could the Minister consider the position of ABIDs and perhaps, when the Government refuse a situation, provide some more incentives for ABIDs, so they act more like a local levy for seaside towns?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

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

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley for the work he does in support of business improvement districts, but I also pay tribute to business improvement districts themselves for the extraordinary work they do in improving the nature of, usually, town centres, but it might be different areas, and also in reducing crime and disorder in those areas. In the light of the Prime Minister’s foreword to the strategic defence review—I refer to my interest as chair of the National Preparedness Commission—in terms of the national initiative that he is talking about and the shared endeavour to improve our preparedness and resilience as a nation, does the Minister not see that there is a particular role for business improvement districts in ensuring that local areas are indeed resilient against all sorts of attacks and threats and that businesses themselves are making a contribution to that process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my friend for his question. I will say honestly that I had not thought of it in that way before, but I can absolutely see the point that he is making. My noble friend started his question by talking about the important role that BIDs play. There are, as he knows, more than 340 BIDs now operating in the UK, which are cumulatively investing more than £154 million each year in their local areas. I think the type of initiative that he described is exactly the type of work that they, in some areas, do, and I am sure could do more widely. So I very much agree with the point that my friend makes.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, are the Government considering using business rates to encourage live music in pubs and clubs? That could have a massive effect on making, certainly pubs, more interested in providing music on weekends.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

That is a very interesting proposal from my noble friend. As I say, we will set out an interim report later this summer, setting out a clear direction of travel, and let us see whether those ideas are included.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

Following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does the Minister know or will he research what proportion of BID money is being spent on foot patrolling by the private security industry in areas where we thought the police were supposed to be doing it and where we are already paying for it separately?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very happy to follow the noble Lord’s suggestion and research that. I do not know the number off the top of my head, but in the spending review, we set out important new investment in the high street, particularly the security of the high street, because we know that, if we want people to go into their high streets and spend money and time there, they need to feel safe. Therefore, investment in crime reduction and deterrence in the way that the noble Lord sets out is important.