Autumn Budget 2025

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I also welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and look forward to his maiden speech and working constructively with him in the months and years ahead.

We have all had a few days to consider last week’s Budget, and the conclusion that the vast majority of commentators have reached is, unfortunately for our country, decidedly negative. The one welcome and significant aspect is the slight increase in fiscal headroom from its low level last year, but this has been clouded over by the flow of misinformation in the run-up to the Budget. The negative aspects are numerous. I turn first to the most disappointing area.

When Labour took power, they constantly assured us that growth was their number one priority. Less than 18 months later, growth as an objective has virtually disappeared. There are few pro-growth measures in the Budget but many that will hinder growth, and there were scant mentions of the subject in the Chancellor’s speech. It seemed that growth had served its political purpose and could be cast aside. The Prime Minister tried to correct this on Monday in an unusual post-Budget speech, but he did not dispel fears that growth would become less of a priority. Since then, the OECD has warned that growth will be sluggish and that UK inflation will remain the highest of the G7 countries this year.

The Minister has said today, in an attempt to talk more about growth, that there is clearly much more to do on growth, and I agree. For growth, we need business and consumer confidence, both private and public investment, a tax system with the right incentives and supply side reforms to lift the burden of regulation. The Prime Minister is promising the latter, but the Government’s actions do not match the rhetoric.

I turn next to the extraordinary pre-Budget shenanigans, which lasted many weeks. Before the Budget was delivered, vast swathes of it, indeed pretty much all of it, were trailed, briefed out, withdrawn and then re-briefed by the Government themselves. What purpose all this activity was meant to serve is mysterious. What is clear is that the whole process, counter to all norms and indeed the rules, was contrary to the national interest. As one illustration, Andy Haldane, the former chief economist of the Bank of England, was explicit in saying:

“One of the reasons we had a very weak growth number … is … Budget speculation”.


That speculation was initiated and carried out by the Government themselves.

On process, the OBR’s view of the Government’s breaking of budgetary conventions is set out clearly for us all to see on page one of its report, in the beautifully understated yet lethal prose of the UK mandarinate led by Richard Hughes. We all suspect that he was eased out as much because he authored it as because of the admittedly serious leak of the OBR document on Budget Day, but I shall quote it so we can all enjoy the performance. Describing the production of its forecast, the OBR says:

“Given the unusual volume of speculation on the subject prior to the publication of this--


report—

“the Chair has taken the unusual step of writing to the Chair of the Commons Treasury Committee to set out the facts concerning the evolution of our forecast over the course of the past four months”.

“Unusual” indeed—it is a devastating indictment of Treasury Ministers’ behaviour over the Budget period by those in the best position to judge the facts. Anyone who thinks this is insignificant should just look at the turmoil on the bond markets between 4 November and the day of the Budget—a gift for hedge funds and investment banks, with small investors and more conservative funds left out. Indeed, savers were frightened into withdrawing record amounts from the stock market over the last few months.

The Chancellor and the Prime Minister fought the last general election with a promise of minimal tax rises. The Labour Party has now increased taxes by £40 billion and £26 billion in successive Budgets, taking the total projected burden to 38% of GDP by 2030, an all-time high. It promised that any tax increases would spare working people. So how has that fared? Badly is the answer, if we consider the freeze in income tax thresholds, or the new tax on dividends and landlords, or last year’s huge employer national insurance increase, which in time reduced pay. The hikes in IHT on family businesses, farms and pension savings, which affect many working people, are still to bite. The Chancellor has delivered a Budget not for working people, not for the country, but for the good of her party and her political career.

Last week, the Chancellor refused to rule out future tax rises. The OBR has said that this uncertainty is harming and will continue to harm our economy. It says on page 6 of the report:

“We expect quarterly growth to pick up only gradually in the near term as … domestic business and consumer confidence remains subdued, including in anticipation of further tax rises”.


But why this fear of tax rises? It is because, just over a year ago, the Chancellor told business leaders at the CBI conference that:

“We’ve put our public finances back on a firm footing. Public services now need to live within their means because I’m really clear, I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes”.


She is in the happy position of providing numerous powerful quotes—for the Opposition.

The Chancellor is shoring up problems for later. Many of the tax rises, notably the increases in thresholds, only kick in between 2028 and 2031. The fall in borrowing depends on this tax tail. Is it realistic to think that this will actually happen in an election year? I think not.

It would be remiss of me not to mention SMEs. What was in it for them? There was a small positive on apprenticeships, but meagre and previously announced reforms to EMI schemes, VCTs and listing reliefs, massive new pressures on payroll from the threshold freezes, minimum wage hikes and salary sacrifice cap, a tourist tax, which will dampen demand, and a hideous mix-up over business rates which will lead to the closure of pubs and hotels.

More than 5 million people are now receiving out-of-work benefits with no work-related requirements. Since October 2024, the number of people in payrolled employment has fallen by 180,000. Yet instead of tackling this, the Government have chosen measures that make it worse. The Chancellor has raised the costs of employing people, raised personal taxes and weakened incentives to work. It is no surprise that the OBR now forecasts that unemployment in 2026 will be 240,000 higher than it expected in March. The decision to scrap the two-child limit compounds this failure. Evidence from the Centre for Social Justice shows that removing the cap interacts with the expansion of health and disability benefits to create benefit entitlements that, for many households, exceed typical earnings by a wide margin. In taxing people and businesses to make it more lucrative to stay at home and not contribute at all, the Government have not only produced an unfair Budget but produced one for benefits street, as the leader of the Opposition has shown us with such energy and verve.

What about our national debt, which is now approaching 100% of GDP? Dealing with this is vital, as in 2025-26 the OBR expects debt interest—yes, interest—to total over £110 billion. Of course, the underlying debt has been accrued over many years. Unfortunately, we do not have a strong plan to reduce it. This is not helped by the fact that we now pay more interest on debt than any OECD country bar Iceland and at a rate higher than that paid during the premiership of Liz Truss, whom the Government are quick to criticise.

The Government have pledged to raise defence spending to 3.5% by 2035, yet the executive director of the Henry Jackson Society has said that the Budget

“talks up defence investment, but the numbers … don’t match the rhetoric … the OBR shows a £32 billion black hole under its 3.5 per cent defence pledge”.

If we want to understand the real effects of this Budget on our economy, we need look no further than the OBR. Its verdict is crystal-clear: the Government’s choices have not improved the economic outlook but made it worse. The OBR has downgraded the UK’s rate of growth in productivity to 1% per annum and, because of decisions taken in the Budget, it states that this package will have

“no significant impact on output”

now, and not even by 2030. Inflation will be higher for longer; unemployment is forecast to rise; increases in household disposable income will collapse from 3% to 0.25% per annum; mortgage costs will rise; the real rate of return on investment by business has been downgraded; the forecast for business investment has been cut once again; public sector net debt rises in most years of the forecast; and a sharp fall in additions to housing stock is expected. Compared to March, the picture is even bleaker: potential output is down, productivity is down, real GDP is down, corporate profits are down and inflation is up.

The Chancellor asked the country for trust; the OBR has told us why she does not deserve it. She promised a plan for growth; the forecasts show stagnation, contraction and diminishing prospects for working people. She promised to protect households; the evidence shows higher taxes, lower incomes and rising mortgage costs. She promised to support business; the OBR shows investment down, profits down and confidence falling. She promised to repair the public finances, yet debt rises in almost every year of the forecast.

The Minister again claimed that our economic problems are all the fault of the last Government. I simply say that it is time he accepted responsibility for his and his colleagues’ failures. After all the noise, all the speculation, all the briefs and counterbriefs, we are left with this unavoidable truth: this Budget does not meet the moment. Our country deserves better than that.