Interest Rates

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

It is a difficult question. We are living in uncertain times and things are difficult for people on mortgages. It will be different depending on the type of mortgage you have: is it a fixed-rate mortgage or a variable-rate mortgage? If it is a fixed-rate mortgage, you might be very pleased, when your mortgage is renewed, that we are getting medium-term inflation down, but I understand that it is more difficult for interest-only mortgages. I finish by saying that the Bank rate in May 2022 was 1%, but by August 2023 it was 5.25%—a 4.25 percentage point increase. I am sure that people who were on the Front Bench in those days will also be able to help answer the noble Baroness’s question.

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

My Lords, I declare my interest as the chairman of a small bank. Does the Minister agree that it is the market as much as the Bank of England which determines the interest rates which people and businesses pay? Does he therefore agree that the 40 basis points reduction in 10-year gilt yields is probably more significant over the last month than the 25 basis point increase in the Bank rate? Can he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to the fiscal rules in particular and fiscal credibility in general?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

The answer is yes to those questions. How it works will be complicated for different people, depending on the terms they got from the banks. We have an absolute commitment to the fiscal rules.

Fortifying the Fiscal Framework (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Wood, and the committee on a persuasive and thoughtful report.

I must confess to having a love/hate relationship with fiscal rules—love because I am all in favour of fiscal rectitude but hate because, whatever rule is put in place, it is steadily subverted as Governments become fixated on hitting the target while missing the point. I am arguably the author of my own misfortune, since I was Permanent Secretary to the Treasury when five of the 10 fiscal rule regimes, so expertly catalogued by the committee, were put in place.

I recognise and share all the committee’s criticisms of the rules, and last week’s Budget provides further proof of its analysis. Borrowing and debt is higher in every year of the forecast compared to last year’s Budget, but nevertheless the Government meet the rules with broadly the same headroom. That is counterintuitive. I should be clear that that is not a criticism of the macro judgment of the Chancellor’s Budget; I thought that judgment was broadly correct, and I welcome the reception that has been given by the gilt market.

I also welcome the strengthening of the framework in 2024, but the challenge of fiscal policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, pointed out, is that spending and revenue levels are huge and subject to substantial forecasting error. Left to my own devices, I would set a fiscal target of balancing a Budget—or at least the current Budget—year by year, but such a target would not lend itself to the current fiscal rules framework without having a very large cushion indeed. Fiscal targets therefore have to be set over the medium term. That means they have to be rolled forward year by year, and that provides endless scope for gaming, as just about everyone has pointed out.

No doubt the rules can be further improved, and the committee makes some good suggestions but, as I told successive Chancellors, “Don’t get mesmerised by the rules. Meeting them on their own does not give you credibility. Rather, focus on the substance. If you have a credible plan underpinned by credible tax and spending policies, the markets will reward you”.

At the weekend, I ignored the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwater, and read the book by the last Prime Minister but two, Bank Job, in which she argues that the OBR should be abolished. It is always important to expose yourself to different views, and actually it is worth a read—it is quite short—but, sadly, I was not persuaded. In my view, the committee is right to praise the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility. It is not the OBR’s fault if Governments feel constrained; that is the inevitable consequence of sailing too close to the wind. The OBR will never get its forecast right—that is because no forecaster gets forecasts right over and over again—but at least its forecasts are unbiased, unlike the Treasury’s of old. One of the many things I learned there is that, when Governments assumed they had increased the trend rate of growth in the economy, they were invariably deluding themselves.

Between 1945 and 2008, the British economy generally grew by 2.25% a year. Since then, it has grown much more slowly. The OBR’s latest forecast reflects that. Perhaps it assumes that the economy will grow too slowly, but it should attach a high bar to raising its view of the trend growth in productivity. As the committee advises, it should also attach a high bar to the dynamic scoring of policy measures. In my experience, it takes many years, even decades, for any structural reform to feed through to economic growth. I worry that Chancellors and officials of late spend too much time trying to press the OBR to accept their view of the dynamic effects of policy changes. Again, they would be better advised to focus on the substance; if policies have a dynamic effect, they should regard that as a bonus.

Finally, I endorse the committee’s desire to upgrade the status of the OBR’s Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report. You did not have to be a genius to spot the demographic time bomb, which has finally exploded; indeed, I remember working on the Fowler reviews in the 1980s, which were predicated on this demographic time bomb. Setting out its fiscal consequences so lucidly provides a service to a media and political class who have an uncanny knack of ignoring it. Anything Parliament can do to give it a higher profile should be warmly welcomed.

Scottish Government: Social Security Benefits

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question but I do not agree with the assumption underlying it. Of course we must spend more on defence, but we must also continue to support those who need that support the most. As I said in answer to the first Question, spending on benefits is a choice for the Scottish Government and must come from within their own budget.

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

My Lords, does the noble Lord the Financial Secretary agree that fiscal responsibility should lie at the heart of the devolutionary settlement? Does he agree that maintaining fiscal credibility would be a particular challenge in the event of Scotland becoming independent? Is he aware that the Irish Free State had to cut the state pension by 10% in 1924 to maintain parity with sterling? Might he draw that to the attention of those who advocate Scottish independence?

Middle East: Economic Update

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Robertson but I disagree with him. Looking at the decisions that the Prime Minister and Chancellor have taken, we are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. As I have said already, and I am sure will continue to say, the defence investment plan will be published in due course. The noble Lord spoke of the international action that the Prime Minister has led; he knows that the Prime Minister has led global action by convening with the President of France a summit of nations to work together to support freedom of navigation through the strait. He will know that the UK will continue to play its part through engagement with many industries, including the insurance industry, to support shipping when the conditions allow.

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

My Lords, does the Financial Secretary agree that, rather than increasing revenues, an oil price of more than $100 a barrel is far more likely to reduce them because of the wider effect on the economy? Does he agree that, at a time like this, when revenues are likely to be hard to come by, the Government should be very cautious about agreeing to increased spending proposals of the sort we have been listening to today?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord on that point. He is far more expert in these matters than me and was in the Treasury through many more crises than I have been, so he has great experience in this matter. He is absolutely right that the IMF showed last week that the impact on the size of our economy and GDP could be significant. No one quite knows yet what the full impact of this conflict will be; that will depend on its duration and severity. However, we must be agile in responding appropriately at each moment.

The noble Lord is absolutely right that, as we respond to this crisis, we should learn from the mistakes of the past. The previous Government, as I have said already, pushed up borrowing, interest rates, inflation and mortgage costs with an unfunded, untargeted package of support under Liz Truss. That package gave the most support to the wealthiest households: between 2022 and 2024, under the previous Government, households in the top income decile received an average of £1,350 of direct energy bill support. That left us with high levels of national debt and a cheque written then for a bill that is still being paid today. The party opposite talks about the importance of inflation, but we will not tackle inflation through an unfunded, untargeted package of support like we saw in the past.

World Economic Outlook: UK Growth and Inflation

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. The economy, at the time of the spring forecast, showed that we are well placed going into this conflict. Inflation was at 3% and is set to fall to target—a much lower starting point than when Russia illegally invaded Ukraine. Borrowing was set to fall more over this Parliament than in any other G7 economy. We had increased headroom for over £23 billion, giving us the buffer to respond to these shocks, and GDP per capita was forecast to rise. Therefore, my noble friend is absolutely right. Outturn data for February, the final month before this conflict began, showed that the economy grew faster than anyone was expecting.

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

My Lords, I encourage the Financial Secretary not to become mesmerised by IMF forecasts. The British economy has proved remarkably resilient over the past 18 years in the face of a succession of shocks. Generally, the Government have got into difficulty when the Treasury and the Bank have done too much rather than too little. Can he confirm that any interventions will be targeted and that the Government will maintain their inflation target and stick to their fiscal rules?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I absolutely confirm to the noble Lord all three of those points. As he knows, the price cap is giving households certainty on their bills until July, ahead of the winter months. As we respond to this crisis, we must absolutely learn from the mistakes of the past, some of which he mentioned. The previous Government pushed up borrowing, interest rates, inflation and mortgage costs with an unfunded, untargeted package of support under Liz Truss, and they gave the most support to the wealthiest households. We will not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government. We are planning for every eventuality so that we can keep costs down for everyone and provide support for those who need it most, acting within our fiscal rules, as the noble Lord said, to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.

Autumn Budget 2025

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is axiomatic that, if you want to land a difficult message, it is best to start with some positives: so here goes. First, all credit to the Government for sticking to their fiscal rules, and increasing their safety margin. I admit that I had my doubts this time last year. Secondly, the overall Budget judgment looks about right: supporting the economy this year and next, but tightening policy thereafter. Thirdly, the measures to reduce inflationary pressures in the coming year should help the Bank of England ease monetary policy further. I am therefore not surprised by the positive response of the gilt market. Given the size of the national debt, it will be the interest rate demanded by the market that will determine the Government’s future room for manoeuvre.

So why has the reception of the Budget been so negative? Pre-briefing is partly to blame. There is a reason, over and above market sensitivity, why Chancellors as different as Nigel Lawson and Gordon Brown have favoured Budget secrecy. It allows them to control the narrative and tell the economic story on their terms. I have considerable sympathy for the Chancellor on the OBR leak, but the endless briefing and leaking before that point was surely the Treasury’s responsibility. In 2013, following a similar leak, I carried out a review in which I recommended that the Treasury introduce a ban on the pre-release of the Budget: that is, the economic and fiscal projections, the fiscal judgment and individual tax rates, reliefs and allowances. The then Government, and I think the Official Opposition, accepted my recommendations. Can the Financial Secretary confirm that the Government still accept this recommendation?

I also worry about the Budget measures themselves. I, for one, celebrated when we were led to understand that income tax rates would be raised. I know it would have broken the manifesto commitment, but at least it could have addressed the issue of the growing number of people facing high, sometimes penal, marginal rates as child benefit, childcare support and the personal allowance are withdrawn.

I continue to worry about intergenerational fairness. I feel that better-off pensioners—I speak as one—could have contributed more. Not only is my triple-lock pension safe, but my dividends are not going to be taxed more and I still do not pay any national insurance on my earnings. I am broadly in favour of abolishing the two-child benefit cap. I do not accept the argument that it will worsen work incentives; that is the beauty of the universal credit system introduced by the previous Government. But surely this should have been announced at the same time as sickness benefit reform, the better to get the Government’s Back-Benchers to accept it.

I also worry about the timing of the proposed tax increases. I criticised the previous Government’s Augustinian approach to fiscal policy. The Government appear to be adopting the same approach, albeit with different sides of the ledger: more spending today financed by tax increases several years down the line. Given demographic pressures, the tax take has to rise, but I fear that the Government will find it all but impossible to deliver. There is a reason the tax take has been so stable over the last 75 years, never going below 28.3% or above 35.2%. Getting revenue in is a difficult business, and the tax base is less buoyant than it was.

The optimist in me hopes that the economy will grow, that some of the tax increase may prove unnecessary and that the Government can cut taxes in the run-up to the election as Mr Healey did back in 1978. But I have to say, I am less than confident.

Inheritance Tax: Pensions

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I very much agree with the first part of my noble friend’s question. It is very important to state that the intended purpose of pension savings is to fund retirement. The Government continue to incentivise pension savings, with tax relief on both contributions to pensions and the growth of funds held within a pension scheme. These tax incentives are very significant, costing taxpayers £78 billion a year. It is therefore right, as my noble friend said, that it is important to ensure that these tax reliefs are being used for encouraging savings for retirement, rather than ordinary taxpayers subsidising the wealthy to pass on their wealth free of inheritance tax.

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

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is an important principle of the tax system that tax reliefs, and therefore tax expenditures, should be tightly drawn? Does he also agree that the point of pension relief is to provide a pension in retirement, and therefore that pension savers should draw down their pension, rather than using it as a device to avoid inheritance tax and to improve the lot of their descendants, rather than themselves?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do agree with everything the noble Lord said. I enjoyed discussing these matters with him when he was a Treasury official and I was a special adviser. I probably learned a lot of this from him then, so I completely agree with what he said. To repeat, the purpose of pension savings is to fund retirement. If taxpayers are spending £78 billion a year on that, it is very important that it is used for its intended purposes rather than for estate planning, as the noble Lord says.

Gilt Yields

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As she will know, recent gilt yield movements have risen in line with global peers, mainly driven by global factors. The recent gilt market moves have also been orderly. As she knows, our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and we have a clear plan in place to put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. She talks about the position of the UK economy; she knows that this is an uncertain and volatile global economy, but even so the UK remains resilient and is outperforming our peers. The UK was the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year and our commitment to stability is paying off, creating space for the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times since the election, with business confidence now at its highest level for 12 months.

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

My Lords, the Financial Secretary is right to point out that yields on German bunds have risen almost as much as yields on gilts in the UK over the last month, but does he recognise the importance of ensuring that the UK’s economic policy does not stand out from other medium-sized countries in Europe? To that end, can he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to their fiscal rules in particular and to sound money in general?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I am happy to reconfirm that; our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable. The Government have a clear plan in place to put the public finances on a sustainable path and prioritise investment to support long-term growth. At the Spring Statement, the OBR forecast that borrowing would fall in every single year of the forecast, from 4.8% of GDP to 2.1% of GDP in 2029-30.

The noble Lord also said it is important that our economic policy does not stand out from our peers. One area in which we did stand out when this Government came to office was in historically low levels of investment in our economy, which constrained growth. We had the lowest levels of investment in the G7, which is something that our fiscal rules seek to rectify.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Winter Fuel Payment

Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as the Minister knows, I did not welcome this decision. Turning to principles, does he agree that cliff edges in the tax and benefits system are undesirable? Can he explain whether, when a pensioner’s income moves from £34,999 to £35,000, support will be tapered away, or whether £1 in extra income will result in a £300 loss of winter fuel allowance?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He knows much more about the tax and benefits system than I do, I suspect, having spent many more years working on it than me. The answer to his question is that it is the latter: it is up to and including £35,000, so it will be at £35,001 where that happens. At that point, they will lose the winter fuel payment in its entirety.