British Steel

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

Creating an ongoing, viable concern is absolutely the aspiration for the sector, not necessarily with regard to British Steel specifically, but the much broader sector. As I said earlier, we have the immediate-term question of how we make sure that the day-to-day operation of British Steel is ongoing and running. That second longer-term piece is how we make it a financially sustainable industry and one that is able to wash its own face economically. To that part, that is where that steel strategy is really core. With regard to the specifics of what we are spending in the here and now, that is absolutely information that will be made available within part of the department’s accounts when they are published.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the annual volume of steel scrap exported from the UK was 7.22 million tonnes in 2023, 8.24 million tonnes in 2022 and 7.4 million tonnes in 2021. That figure is not going down: it is bobbling around, which is a product of both the supply of scrap steel from within the UK and what is happening in markets to which it is being exported, particularly the Indian subcontinent. My question is about the Government’s long-term vision. That amount of steel would ensure that if we were to recycle that ourselves under the best possible environmental conditions, we would obviously be creating jobs and opportunities to secure a supply of steel for the just transition that we need. Is the Government’s long-term vision a circular economy in steel so we are not exporting scrap steel?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I can confirm that thinking about how we create that circular economy within the steel industry and how we think about scrap steel will absolutely be a key aspect of the steel strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I am more than happy to follow up specifically on that matter with you separately.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister spoke about seeking new private sector involvement in Scunthorpe and the steelworks. We have seen so much private sector involvement in sectors such as the water industry, with essentially the privatisation of profits and cash and the socialisation of debts and costs. Can the noble Baroness assure me that that will not happen here?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I think we have been clear about the best way forward: we would like this to be a commercially run business, with private investment and government acting in support. But we will do whatever it takes to give the UK the best chance to safeguard the future of steel-making. That is why we would talk about the most likely outcome, as the Secretary of State has mentioned, being that of nationalisation.

UK-US Trade and Tariffs

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

On my noble friend’s question about the impact not just within the UK but outside, if we think about our supply chains, we see that so many are interconnected and have a fierce reliance not just on the UK, the US or Europe but on so many other countries that pass through those supply chains—especially when we think about things such as digital services that we are championing. Making sure that we support those industries, not just to support their economies and those that could be most in need but to support our supply chains, is something that would ultimately benefit both sides of that equation.

I come back to the fact that, today, I am just speculating, because I still do not understand fully how those tariffs will affect our supply chains and some of the sectors within those other countries. Yes, we need to make sure that we have strong and robust supply chains and are supporting those nations that benefit most from the value of that international trade, but I cannot comment further on exactly what the specifics look like at this point in the absence of more detail.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister spoke about strengthening the US-UK relationship further and about a positive trading relationship with the US. This tone reflects the Pollyanna approach that seems to bear no relationship to the reality of we saw last night of the great game show-like display in Washington—an attempt to divide and rule.

The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Bilimoria, spoke about working with the majority of the world’s trading countries—those countries that want to follow the rule of law and an orderly system—yet what we are hearing from the Government is again and again talk of leaving our long-term economic future in the hands of whether or not we are, from one day to the next, in President Trump’s favour. Surely, we must hear more about defending that rules-based order and working together, as the noble Viscount just said?

Closed-Ended Investment Companies: Cost Disclosure

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, again, for her question. I am not sure that we are going to agree on this specific point. I have already set out the Government’s position very clearly. I recognise that there are frustrations among some noble Lords and in the sector. It is the Government’s view that operationalising this legislation is a matter for industry and the regulator. The Government look forward to seeing the outcomes of the FCA’s consultation in due course.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in an earlier answer, the Minister said that the Government want to encourage savings and think that saving is a good thing. How does the Minister square that with the fact that the Government are planning to increase the supply of credit to households, regarding that as a way to encourage growth? Despite the obvious risks that increasing household credit brings—and the fact that, as the Economics Observatory noted, consumer confidence remains weak, as it has been since the Brexit vote in 2016, and has declined since mid-2024—how do we square up encouraging savings and encouraging credit?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Government have a very clear objective of increasing living standards in all parts of the country. We want all households to have more money available to spend and to save.

Capital Investment and Share Ownership

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. He is far more expert in these matters than I am, but I absolutely agree with him. Clearly, the public sector needs to be an intelligent client when it is negotiating with the private sector. That skill set is vital both within the Civil Service and in the skills we can draw on. As I mentioned, the Chancellor has established the British Infrastructure Taskforce to try to help with skills and advice. It is made up of some of the UK’s biggest financial companies, and it will support the Government’s infrastructure goals and ensure that the strategy is credible and deliverable.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the disastrous Blair PFI NHS hospitals scheme. I do not think there is much awareness that about half the money is still to be paid off. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to the cost to local government. The Minister is probably aware of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research figure: local government is paying £13.5 billion. The institute also found that £1 billion had been made in pre-tax profit by a handful of companies, often registered in Guernsey and Jersey. Is PFI not simply a benefit to the financial sector?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I think it was probably a benefit to the people who were able to be treated in the 100 hospitals that were built as a result of it. As I say, the private finance initiative was a specific public/private partnership model that was developed 20 years ago. The Government are actively managing the legacy PFI portfolio, and we are learning lessons from that.

London Stock Exchange: Decline in UK Funds

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, and once again, I pay tribute to her for her campaigning on this issue. The Government absolutely recognise the key role the investment company sector plays in the UK economy; it represents over 30% of the FTSE 250 and invests in assets that support the Government’s growth agenda. We have listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s concerns, not least through her campaigning in the previous Parliament and her Private Member’s Bill in this Parliament. Last year we legislated, I think as a direct result of her campaigning, to reform retail disclosure, with the FCA launching a consultation on an entire replacement regime in December.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that the tax-dodging fast-fashion firm Shein, having been rejected in New York, is now apparently seeking to list on the London Stock Exchange. Does the Minister agree with Liam Byrne, the chair of the Business and Trade Committee, who wrote to LSE asking if it agreed that it was important that firms seeking to list on the exchange have safeguards against forced labour in their products?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The decision on whether a firm can list in the UK is a matter for the independent regulator, the FCA, subject to a firm meeting its listing rules and relevant disclosure requirements.

Mortgage Prisoners Inquiry Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who really cut to the nub of this issue and the reason for this Bill. This is a case of extreme, long-term injustice in which people suffer through absolutely no fault of their own. The fault lies with the failure of the financial sector, the regulators and the Government to take action.

The speech from the noble Earl, Earl Lytton, was particularly powerful in illustrating the way in which failures in the financial sector interact with gross failures of regulation in the building sector. Some people are almost literally being crunched in the middle between those two situations.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on bringing this Bill before us and being a dedicated, long-term campaigner on behalf of mortgage prisoners; he gave us a clear explanation of the issue, which I will not repeat. I acknowledge that I have acted as a modest supporter of the noble Lord since the passages of the Financial Services Act 2021 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. In that modest supporting role, I went with him to the Treasury with some of the victims affected—the mortgage prisoners themselves. I have to note that, as we heard from the noble Lord, at that meeting, we heard the testimony of just how much this has destroyed some people’s lives; indeed, we have seen some tragic cases of suicide.

However, I am afraid that what also came through from that meeting was the sense that the Treasury really did not grasp the issue. That makes a powerful case for the Bill before us today and for a public inquiry in order to get the full understanding. We have the excellent LSE/Martin Lewis report but relying on academics or on someone who is, after all, just an ordinary member of the public to explain things is really not the right place to be in this great systems failure case.

The timing of this debate is interesting. We are talking about an extreme case of abuse of consumers in the all-too-often predatory financial sector. We are seeing scandals strike again and again, and innocent consumers are the victims. It is concerning that, just yesterday, we saw the unexpected resignation of the head of the UK Financial Ombudsman Service amid what has been described as a

“major review of the consumer redress system in the financial services sector”.

The Financial Times reports that she was

“under pressure to take a less consumer-friendly approach”.

We are told that industry executives complained that she was too much on the side of consumers. The head of the consumer group Fairer Finance is quoted in the Financial Times as saying:

“It may well be that she is quitting in protest at the direction of travel … perhaps the strongest signal yet that the Treasury is serious about watering down consumer protections”.


The context of the Bill provides a real opportunity for the Minister and the Government to signal that that is indeed not the case. Accepting the Bill would be one way of sending that signal. We are, of course, in

“the fraud capital of the world”.

as the head of UK Finance said. Surely, the Government should be more concerned about the fate of consumers, given what we have heard today.

I have one final thought. An article in the Express newspaper on 22 January cited the FCA’s figure of 47,000 mortgage prisoners. The story reported that:

“The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has promised to look into these latest proposals”,


those proposals being those of the LSE and Martin Lewis. The signal here to mortgage prisoners from at least one media source is that are going to see progress; they will see genuine reaction from the Government. I can only offer my hope that we will hear something positive today for all the people who read that story and had, after so many years of suffering, a little dash of hope.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on his Bill and on his opening speech today. I thank him for bringing this issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House, not only through this Bill but through his campaigning over recent years.

The Government recognise the seriousness of the issue raised by this Bill—the challenge facing borrowers who have been unable to switch to a new mortgage deal despite keeping up to date with their repayments. While they constitute a small proportion of mortgage borrowers, for those affected the impact has been all too real, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his work to highlight their situation.

The Bill has one central provision; to establish a public inquiry into the events surrounding the creation of the group of borrowers commonly referred to as “mortgage prisoners”. The Bill also contains terms of reference for that inquiry. I will seek to address three key points. First, the origins of this issue, and why the Government’s assessment is that the right processes were followed in relation to this group following the financial crisis. Secondly, the case for a public inquiry and why the Government do not believe that it represents the right approach. Thirdly, support to those affected and the action the Government are now taking.

The vast majority of the borrowers we are discussing today took out mortgages under less stringent lending conditions prior to the financial crisis. Many of these mortgages were held with either Northern Rock or Bradford & Bingley, which were subsequently nationalised by the Government to protect financial stability. In 2010, they were transferred to a public body known as UK Asset Resolution, which was unable to offer new deals to borrowers because of state aid rules. Between 2014 and 2021, UK Asset Resolution sold these mortgages back to the private sector. Many were sold to so-called inactive lenders that did not offer new mortgage deals, leaving some borrowers paying costlier standard variable rate tariffs. Those borrowers were, and in some cases still are, unable to switch to another lender because they do not meet modern lending criteria. The terms of reference for the inquiry proposed by the Bill seek to investigate the process by which these mortgages were sold back to the private sector.

The Government recognise the challenges faced by these borrowers and the very real impact this process has had on them. However, our assessment is that the correct protections were put in place at the time and that all relevant Financial Conduct Authority rules were followed.

Specifically, bidders were prevented from changing a customer’s existing terms and conditions. Rules ensured that all mortgages were either administered by a Financial Conduct Authority regulated entity or made in accordance with Financial Conduct Authority regulations. Further protections were included with each subsequent sale, some of which followed recommendations from Parliament.

All types of lenders, including “active” lenders who offered new loans, were invited to take part in this process, but interest from active lenders was very limited and no viable bids were put forward in any of the sales. This likely reflects the fact that most of the loans involved were outside of most active lenders’ risk appetite following the financial crisis. The Government have studied this issue carefully but we remain of the view that no further action should have been taken at the time to encourage only active lenders to take part, particularly given the importance of delivering value for money to the taxpayer.

The Bill before your Lordships’ House proposes a statutory public inquiry to explore these issues in greater depth. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has spoken powerfully about the situation faced by affected borrowers and his desire to fully understand the process which resulted in their inability to obtain a new mortgage deal. The Government understand and respect this argument. However, we believe the scrutiny provided to date has produced the necessary information in relation to these events. This includes the two reports published by the National Audit Office covering various aspects of the sales process and, separately, a Public Accounts Committee report into one of the biggest asset sales. The previous Government also provided relevant disclosures to Parliament on the completion of each sale.

The Government agree with all those who wish to see these issues fully and transparently investigated. We will continue to work with regulators and industry to ensure that the issues and specific proposals raised by the report mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, are properly considered. However, given the volume of information already in the public domain, we do not believe a further inquiry would provide any significantly new information or additional support to those affected.

Finally, on the support currently available to borrowers, there are protections in place for vulnerable mortgage borrowers. Financial Conduct Authority rules require firms to engage individually with their customers to provide tailored support. Lenders have been allowed to waive certain regulatory requirements when assessing whether a new mortgage deal is affordable for borrowers who are up to date with their repayments. This applies to the cohort of borrowers we have been focusing on. Mortgage lenders, including inactive firms, are also now subject to the consumer duty, which ensures that firms prioritise fair treatment and good outcomes for their customers.

I fully understand that some noble Lords wish us to go further. I assure them that we will continue to consider this issue closely by listening to those borrowers affected and engaging with regulators, the industry and other key stakeholders, including the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, about the processes currently in place.

The Government recognise the impact felt by this group of mortgage borrowers. Their concerns have been ably highlighted by the noble Lord in this debate, as well as by other noble Lords from across the House. The Government will continue to listen carefully to their concerns and consult with others who have an interest in this issue, not least those households directly affected.

However, we are unable to support the Bill before your Lordships’ House today. Our assessment is that the correct process was followed when these mortgages were sold back to the private sector in the years after the financial crisis. We believe that the necessary information has now been put in the public domain, both as evidence submitted to Parliament by the previous Government and through other external analyses, including from the National Audit Office. Most importantly for the households affected, we are confident that significant protections are in place to protect vulnerable mortgage borrowers.

Although I appreciate this will not satisfy the noble Lord’s demands, I hope he will continue to work with the Government, as he has done throughout his campaign on this issue.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The noble Lord did not refer to my questions about the UK Financial Ombudsman Service. I understand that this is a new situation. Perhaps he could write to me about that.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I will happily do so.

Crown Estate (Wales) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on bringing before us this important and timely Bill. We have a sense of unfinished business here. It is not too late, as we have heard, for the Government to pick this up with their own Crown Estate Bill, and we saw the possibility of that happening demonstrated earlier today in your Lordships’ House.

It is worth noting the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that we are talking here about land resources that are the result of conquest. It is interesting that in the current global position, it is a Green principle to believe in self-determination and democracy. I know that the Wales Green Party has been campaigning very strongly in favour of the step that the Bill delivers, and I am sure I will be talking about it with its members when I visit Cardiff next weekend.

I hope that everyone will agree that if we want to discuss British values, self-determination and the right for people to democratically decide their own governance and to have control over their own resources are indeed British values. The Bill is timely because currently these are issues of great concern to the people of Greenland and Panama, as they are to the people of Wales. If we believe in the increasingly battered principle of an international rules-based order and if we are to stand up against powerful forces opposed to that, working at speed to smash them both in their home countries and abroad, this Bill takes us in the right direction.

It is also worth looking at the context of much that is discussed in your Lordships’ House, such as the recent Channel 4 report on Generation Z, identified as those aged 13 to 27. The headline said that a majority of young people want the country to be a dictatorship. When you actually look into the detail of the questions that were asked, it is a little more complex than that. They were asked whether they favoured a strong leader

“who does not have to bother with Parliament and elections”.

I note that these young people are perhaps reflecting what we are hearing from the Government and the governing classes, given that we have just seen the abolition of a large number of elections being delivered by the Government and a great deal of talk about elected mayors being strong leaders. So we might want to look at where these ideas are coming from.

Before we give up on democracy, we should think about trying it. This Bill delivers democracy for the people of Wales. Democracy is not just about voting; it is about deliberating, being in control, being able to collectively make decisions and the people most affected being able to make them, and benefiting from their own resources. As has been commented on by multiple noble Lords, I believe it is the policy of the Labour Party in Wales to support the Bill.

It is worth noting the very relevant context. Report stage of the Great British Energy Bill will be with your Lordships’ House next week and I understand that the Government have finally made a concession on supporting community energy, something that your Lordships’ House has fought for and backed again and again. I reserve the right for final judgment until I have seen the detail; none the less, this is a positive sign. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would enable much more community control and community energy to be delivered in Wales rather than by giant multinational companies operating with far distant commissioners.

Finally, if this Bill was delivered, it would really highlight the remaining lack of democracy around the whole Crown Estate structure for England.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said that the Bill might delay. I suggest that it would greatly enhance and speed up the possibility of delivering that community and democratic energy. There is the strongest possible Green support for this and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is able to hear from the Minister that this is all going to power ahead.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

68: After Clause 3, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of effect on people with protected characteristicsThe Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on people with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of the measures in this Act on people with protected characteristics.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 68 I will also speak to Amendment 69, which is also in my name. Amendment 68, like a number of other amendments that we have discussed today, calls for a review of the impact of the increase in employers’ national insurance, particularly the effect on people with protected characteristics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first address the amendment seeking to require the Government to review the impact of the measures in the Bill on people with protected characteristics. The Government carefully consider the impact of all decisions on those sharing protected characteristics, in line with our legal obligations and our commitment to greater fairness and opportunity. The Government are committed to meeting their obligation to the public sector equality duty, and Ministers are confident that the Government have met the obligation for the changes in this Bill.

Turning to the amendment requiring a review of the impact of the Bill on the environment and green jobs, as I have said previously, an assessment of the policy has been published by HMRC in their tax information and impact note. Further, the OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of the policy change. This approach is in line with the previous changes to national insurance and previous changes to taxation, and the Government do not intend to provide further impact assessments. In light of these points, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendments.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the comments made earlier about the quality of debate and response that we have received from the Government in this Committee. I must express agreement with those statements. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for responding here. I point out that these amendments very much reflect her Amendment 64, which concerns the impact on economic growth, so I am not sure that the arguments about increased bureaucracy and resource cost will apply equally to her amendments.

None the less, let me pick up the points made by the Minister. He said, in referring to the effect on people with protected characteristics, that the Government are considering this carefully. I invite this Committee to consider some of the reports that have come out this week on the lack of trust—among young people in particular—in our Government and our so-called democracy. If we are to win back trust and have people feel that the Government are acting for the common good, not for a few special interests, the Government will need to show their workings. If the Government do indeed care, they need to demonstrate that they care, which is the kind of thing that this review would do.

On Amendment 69, I say again in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the economy is a complete subset of the environment. There are no jobs on a dead planet. There is not much point in assessing economic growth if there is nothing living for it to grow in. We are in Committee so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I will be back.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Growing the UK Economy

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. I will leave it to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for DESNZ to bring forward the Government’s response in that area.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, this morning noted how trend growth across a wide range of global North countries continues to be at historic lows, reflecting real-world conditions such as increasing dependency ratios, and geopolitical and climate shocks. Mr Wolf said that

“the government could focus on redistribution instead”

of growth. Does the Minister agree with Mr Wolf that something such as a wealth tax could be a way to immediately address child poverty, ill health among working-age people, the housing crisis and the low spending power among the lowest 50% of the population by income that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, alluded to?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, but I do not understand the contention at the heart of it. She talks about redistribution, but what is the growth she wants to redistribute if she does not believe in growth? She talks about a wealth tax, but what wealth is it that she wants to tax? She does not believe wealth should be created.

EU Law

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I cannot comment on the specifics of the exact regulation that may or may not be coming. With regard to the trading relationship and making sure we have trade agreements in place, the Government are constantly and doggedly pursuing that to make sure we have a clear trade relationship that is free from barriers that get in the way and impede trade.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, before the previous general election, the Royal Society of Chemistry was calling for a national chemicals agency to overhaul our

“broken chemicals regulation and management system”.

Since Brexit, the EU has stepped ahead in addressing many chemicals that are a threat to public health and environmental health. We are now getting further and further behind almost every day. Are the Government going to follow the recommendation of the Royal Society of Chemistry?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

On the possibility of a chemicals agreement, as we have said, we will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU across a wide range of areas, including this one. But it is too early to discuss scope or specific areas in greater detail.