Autumn Budget 2026

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating those noble Lords who have given their maiden speeches today and welcome them to this House. It is invidious to pick out one of those noble Lords, but let me welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Ussher, to her place. Our paths have crossed in a professional capacity and it is a great pleasure to see her here—and I congratulate her on an extremely good speech.

It would be churlish not to start by acknowledging today’s GDP figures, as the Minister did when he spoke. They are indeed welcome. My issue is what the Chancellor reads into them and, to a certain extent, what the Minister did. The Chancellor said this morning that the UK has “standout resilience”. I gently question that. Resilience rests on many things: strong defence—that is pretty obvious—but also a sustainable national debt, debt interest costs that are under control and a buffer to cushion the economy against shocks. Looking at the Budget and ahead into next year, on all the metrics that show whether our economy is indeed becoming more resilient, we are heading in the wrong direction. Everything we want to go down is going up, and everything we want to go up is going down. The forecast for growth next year: down. Living standards: down. Inflation: up. Unemployment: up. Debt: up. Debt interest: up.

I completely concede that these forecasts may be overly pessimistic. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, is not in his place but, as he said, tough decisions are undoubtedly needed, no matter what happens, as regards spending. Here, as I have said before, I believe that this Government are taking the wrong decisions, or taking no decisions at all. That is weakening, not strengthening, our nation’s resilience.

My noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Howell both spoke about the rising costs of debt interest. I want to focus on another D: defence. I welcome the commitment by the Government, mentioned by the Minister, to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP by 2030-31. My question is whether we are doing enough and doing it speedily enough. Surely, if we were building a resilient nation, we would be accelerating the increase in defence spending while reducing welfare spending. But we are not. The OBR forecasts that defence spending will rise from 2.6% of GDP to 3% by 2030-31, with most of that increase—reportedly £11 billion—deferred until the final year. Meanwhile, annual spending on health and disability benefits will rise by £22.4 billion between 2026-27 and 2030-31. Whatever Mr Milburn might say about this in his review, the welfare bill will not come down in this Parliament. That is what the Chancellor said a couple of weeks ago; I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm today that that is still so.

Secondly, what will this increase in defence spending be spent on? Our nuclear deterrent and programmes reportedly account for around one-fifth of the defence budget, with that share expected to rise. Pay, pensions and other costs add further pressures. How much of the additional defence spending will reach the conventional front line? Will spending on equipment, ammunition, training and operational readiness rise in real terms over the next four years?

Thirdly, how is this increase in defence spending being paid for? Some £1.7 billion from the Treasury’s capital reserve is being used to fund the defence investment plan—note the phrase “capital reserve”. Can the Minister explain why investment in a planned defence programme, which the Government have known about for many months, is being funded from money set aside for unforeseen emergencies? Under what provision of the Treasury’s rules has this been authorised? How much genuinely uncommitted contingency remains to meet the next unforeseen shock?

That brings us to the Chancellor’s wider fiscal strategy. There are many figures in the OBR’s report which show just how weak it is. If nominal GDP growth were just 0.1 percentage points lower each year, £5 billion of the £15 billion fiscal headroom would disappear. Overall, our fiscal buffer of £15 billion compares with an average of approximately £33 billion before November 2022, less than half the historical level. This illustrates a simple, worrying point: our finances are not resilient but fragile, with the Government putting off difficult decisions on spending, hoping something will turn up.

More of the same is not good enough, the Prime Minister told his party conference. But that is precisely what this Budget gives us—more spending, more debt and more denial that we are spending beyond our means. Resilience is built before a crisis, not during one, and it is built by taking difficult decisions today, not leaving them for tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

As I say, welfare spending increased by 0.7 percentage points as a share of GDP during the last Parliament. However, I do want to step back from that and address some of the questions that have been asked.

In many of my discussions and debates with noble Lords, there has been a great degree of consensus, in particular on the Financial Services and Markets Bill. We agreed where we wanted that legislation to go and it has just gone through the Second Reading in the Commons without a vote against it. I pick out in particular the work on child trust funds and—she is nodding—the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, but also others from across the House. The Financial Services and Markets Bill will mean the release of more than £2,000 each for 60,000 to 120,000 young people, as a result of the Government having listened and found a way round the legal difficulties. This House should be rightly proud of what we have achieved by working together. I have done my political bit, so will see whether I can continue in that spirit.

We live in tough times. As one friend said to me, the only predictable thing about the future is its unpredictability. Even since the Budget, who would have guessed what has happened in Iran and in the midterms, and who would guess where we are going from here? Of course, we cannot wish those economic storms away, but the core of the Budget is sticking to the fiscal rules in full—as I said, for the first time since 2022, and in the third year of the forecast.

But, look, this is good news: more widely, Britain continues to show growth in productivity and investment in the face of these global pressures. We are a wonderful, resilient people, served in the most part by fantastic, honest, creative and caring businesses, growing in the year to date by 1.9%. That is impressive. We are in difficult times, we have fiscal discipline and we have a resilient people, and I think they deserve breathing space.

I was quite taken by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, saying that he does not want people giving up their seat for him. I have always taught my kids that, when there is an older person there, you should give up your seat for them, and that that is how my grandchildren should be taught as well. Maybe we come from a different sort of background on all that.

The breathing space is in two places: for consumers and for businesses. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right in saying that there are lots of proposals here. To the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, I say that I really was not so sure that all was quite so gloomy. A lot of the things she was talking about, such as tax simplification, are good points, but there is lots in the Budget.

Maybe they are small things, but they matter to people: 20 million getting the household payment for electricity; VAT on domestic electricity still removed until July, as is the 5p on fuel duty; gas standing charges and levy costs on bills coming off; an increased national minimum wage and national living wage; and a higher mileage allowance. It is a small thing, but there is the removal of tariffs on imports of 100 food products. There is also the £2 cap on buses, the support for parental leave and ending the cliff edge for carer’s allowance. Those are not nothing.

Then we come to the measures for businesses. Some 20 million consumers and 70,000 businesses—70,000 small retail and hospitality properties—are being taken out of paying business rates. My noble friend Lord Walker, who said we need a larger high street strategy, is absolutely right; there is a larger high street strategy, which I would very much like to have him involved in. My noble friend Lady Gill also talked about how things would work locally.

For other businesses, there is the freezing of the duty on red diesel and reducing the bills by 25% on eligible businesses through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. My noble friend Lord McTague mentioned that 14 out of 15 deregulatory proposals had been agreed, the Federation of Small Businesses having helped with all that. Some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned may be covered in that agreement. My noble friend Lord Pitkeathley talked about business improvement districts, which I think have a huge future.

On tax, I think my noble friend Lord McTague and the noble Lord, Lord Mackinlay, are right: I think this is the right thing to do, but it needs to be introduced with very great care. There are two years to prepare for this, and we are working with stakeholders to think about how we do it. I would be delighted to continue the conversation later with both noble Lords.

We are building for the future, and not just by spending. I sometimes think that economists think that, unless it has a huge ticket by it—and some of the things we are talking about do have quite a big ticket by them—then it will not be significant, and they throw out Keynesian economics. But it is not Keynesian economics; it is institutional and behavioural economics. My noble friends Lady Gill and Lord Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Docherty, had it: if you can devolve power, that is a potent economic catalyst for what you will be able to do. If you can create incentives for localities, that really will make a difference.

On energy systems, there is the buying and building of new projects when they lower bills and can connect to the grid, getting out of the grip of international gas prices, and ending the practice of putting levy costs on bills.

On entrepreneurship, there were a lot of excellent contributions. To my noble friend Lord Neri, I say that I can imagine, and I hope, some musical people will take advantage of the fact you can earn £3,000 on a side business. At the other end, to the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, on the unicorns, I say that that is what the capital gains founders’ relief is for. I think the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, mentioned that, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Massey, had some questions about it. Again, I would be more than happy to talk about that.

On big numbers, to mobilise private investment there is £20 billion of capital for the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, this is not crowding out; this is crowding in. It is about primary investment, not secondary investment, and that is a key point. I would be more than happy to talk to the noble Lord and hear his further thoughts on that. It also speaks, I hope, a bit to the questions that were raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, about scaling up science companies and keeping them in the UK. I hope that feels like it makes sense.

Before I finish, I will touch on some of the other points. We are funding defence. I do not know how often I need to make this speech. Let me give noble Lords the numbers: 2.7% in 2027, 3% in 2030 and 3.5% in 2035—that is what the Government intend to spend on defence. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Doyle, about frozen assets and Russia was a good one. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, the numbers, which I have certainly given to the House before, on the defence investment plan are known. This is a huge commitment; it is the biggest since the Cold War. We all agree that it is what we should do, so let us leave it there.

On housing, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester talked about council tax bands A to D. There is a fund of £100 million for people who should get that allowance but are unable to get it. I hope that addresses to some extent the issue that he was thinking about. Housing has been disappointing, but we are certainly not giving up on it. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, asked whether some of the £1.5 billion for social and affordable housing might be available to housing associations. I believe it can be. Again, let us have a conversation about that after we have finished this debate.

In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, on welfare, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that the bill needs to come down, but it is planned to do this in a sustainable way, following what we learn from the Milburn and Timms reviews. Saying that you have the answer now is just not good management; you need to have the facts in front of you before you make those decisions.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

I want clarification on this point. On 29 October, the Chancellor said:

“It’s not correct to say that we’re going to bring this welfare bill down in this parliament”.


Is that statement correct?

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

If the noble Lord had been listening to me, I said that we will get the evidence and then transform the welfare system, with the aim of getting the welfare bill down. Until we have the evidence, it is foolish to make those sorts of commitments. They will blow up in your face.

We are continuing to invest in public services. Since 2024, we have aimed to rebuild our public services. We are not there yet, but the investment has begun. The points made by the noble Lords, Lord Liddle, Lord Hollick and Lord Barber, about value for money and public value are critical to all this. It is vital that the Government are thinking about this. I happened to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Barber, was in the Treasury this very morning talking about this very topic—it is an important one. I hope that we have cross-party consensus that it is about not how much you spend but the value that is seen as a result of it. The point from the noble Lord, Lord Babudu, about systemic health and preventive health is a very good example of how money could be spent better.

I think I am allowed a couple more minutes—although the clock is flashing. I have missed lots of points—I apologise in particular to my noble friends Lord Davies, Lord Watson and Lord Sikka, and the noble Lords, Lord Leigh, and Lord Redwood—including on quantitative easing and quantitative tightening. I will be more than happy to try to address the questions that have been raised, either in a discussion or perhaps noble Lords might like to write to me where the issues are complicated, such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood.

In conclusion, in the face of the global economic storms, the British economy has done well, with good news this morning: investment is up, productivity is up and there is 1.9% year-on-year growth. That is what the Chancellor meant when he talked about our resilient people and businesses. This Budget is just part of our programme: there is a 10-year plan and a spending review. The key things are that we will stick to the fiscal rules, fund defence and offer breathing space and the prospect of hope for the future. But its success rests not just on what this Government do but on what the British people, British workers and British businesses can do. I hope that, instead of being gloomy, we can add a little bit of realistic optimism to this. It is a Budget based on the belief that, working together, the British people can and will achieve more than they achieve alone.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 7th September 2026 Lords Chamber

I predict that, when we in Parliament consider the next financial services Bill—as we do every few years—we will return to accountability. We may well not get a step change in how we hold the regulators to account until there has been a major regulatory failure that the regulators do not manage to talk themselves out of. Then, hindsight on accountability will be a wonderful thing.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to and shareholder in Banco Santander. Your Lordships will be pleased to know that I will speak very briefly on Amendment 68. My noble friend Lady Noakes just covered the waterfront incredibly well, in her exemplary manner, and made all the key points.

I will briefly say this. The first leg of this amendment, about the FCA’s office for regulatory evaluation, is an extremely measured and well-constructed proposal from my noble friend, but I propose to set up something different: an office for financial regulatory accountability that stands outside all the regulators and looks at financial services regulation, consultations and proposals in the round. It would therefore provide an independent source for Parliament and everyone else to look at the impact of those actions, so that they could be analysed and, critically, the regulators and supervisors could be held to account.

Many said to me that they felt this office would become a back-seat driver for the regulators and supervisors, and that we would, essentially, have someone second-guessing their actions, potentially undermining the operational independence that they have been given. This proposal from my noble friend overcomes that very well. While I am very pleased that the Minister is making constructive noises about the need for greater accountability and scrutiny, I am somewhat disappointed that it seems that this proposal, which builds, as far as I can see, on the work of the cost-benefit panels within the FCA, would help Parliament hold the FCA to account with much greater independent analysis. When he sums up, I would like the Minister to give us a bit more argument about why this is a bad idea.

I turn to the second leg of this amendment, which relates to the Bank of England and the office for regulatory evaluation. It is rather sad that, at 10.05 pm, about 15 of us are debating one of the most important institutions in this country, how it is held to account and the means by which it evaluates its performance. This speaks volumes about how we in Parliament potentially need to up our game in how we hold the Bank of England to account. That criticism may be aimed at all of us rather than at the Government.

The independent evaluation office within the Bank performs, and has performed, a critical role. When you look back to see what various chairmen of the court have said about it, many of them have gone on the record over the past decade praising its work and saying that it provides valuable input to the court by analysing what the Bank is up to and making sure that the Bank is internally held to account. So when the Financial Times reported several weeks ago that the Bank of England was dismantling the IEO, I have to say that alarm bells started to ring.

When the Minister sums up, perhaps he can answer some simple questions. I realise that he is speaking on behalf of the Treasury, not the Bank of England, but what I am trying to understand is, first, what is the problem that this decision to dismantle the IEO is trying to solve? What is it that the Bank is trying to achieve? What is the progress it is trying to make by abolishing and dismantling the IEO, in particular given that so many chairmen of the court have spoken in favour of it?

The second point builds on what my noble friend Lady Noakes said. When the IEO is abolished and these external independent analysts are brought in, how many reviews does the court expect to commission? As my noble friend pointed out, the IEO has published only a relatively small handful of reviews. Is it going to be more or less? Next, if the court chooses the subjects, how will we ensure that the uncomfortable issues that the Bank needs to confront will be confronted? Finally, does the Minister think that this move will increase the accountability and scrutiny of the Bank? That is my litmus test: will it make sure that the Bank’s performance is held even more to account?

There are questions to answer here. I very much welcome what the Minister said about his wish to increase accountability and scrutiny. I think that we are disagreeing here on the means by which to do so, so I look forward to his answers.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Noakes, to the Financial Services Regulation Committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and to my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley for their persistent pursuit of a very simple but important principle. As regulators gain more power and their remit expands, so too should the scope and effectiveness of the oversight to which they are subject.

My noble friend Lady Noakes powerfully articulated the concern that the FSMA model has been stretched too far and that even our expert parliamentary committees are struggling with the volume and complexity of oversight. We need stronger, not weaker, democratic accountability, which is why we saw value in the office of regulatory evaluation and/or my noble friend Lord Bridges’s original model tabled in Committee. We also share his concern about the dismantling of the Bank of England’s IEO.

This is an area where the Opposition will continue to develop our thinking for future legislation and would welcome engagement. We are not comfortable with a system whose reaction seems to be to delegate every new or persistent problem to our regulators. We are very pleased that my noble friend Lady Noakes will continue to work with the Treasury and the regulators on improving parliamentary oversight through the relevant committees, and we look forward to working with her and others across the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. What she has proposed represents a practical compromise that would allow us to move on. However, a positive response to Amendment 93 on first use of the new powers would also be important.

One practical way in which the accountability gap could be narrowed a little—and, indeed, trust in the FCA improved—would be to strengthen the remit of the cost-benefit analysis panels, which already sit within the regulators. Their remit could extend beyond rule changes to include guidance and enforcement activity. They could be given the ability to request an assessment of changes that the regulator has judged to be immaterial. This would strengthen internal challenge, improve confidence in the regulatory process and provide Parliament with more useful and more independent information. I have not brought back yet another amendment on this proposal, but I hope the Minister can commit to looking seriously at it as a follow-up to this useful debate.

I welcome the Government’s amendment on competitiveness and growth. I am only sorry that the name of the Financial Services Regulation Committee does not seem to have made its way into the statute.

Middle East: Economic Update

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Of course there are consequences; I agree completely with the noble Lord. He talks of a hypothetical of the defence investment plan not happening. It will happen and, as I have said already, it will be published in due course.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, in response to my noble friend Lord Clarke’s question, the Minister spoke of the cuts that the Government are planning to make to the welfare budget. Is he saying that those cuts are sufficient and that that is all the Government will be doing?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not have a crystal ball and I cannot look ahead to everything the Government will be doing, but I can tell the noble Lord, as I said to his noble friend, that we are reforming the welfare system.

Middle East: Economic Update

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his question and his consistent support for the action we are taking on renewables. He is absolutely right that it is important that the Government enable the country to take control of its own energy supply. As he says and I have said, we are continuing to invest in renewables by lifting the ban on onshore wind and running the biggest ever floating offshore wind auction last year.

On household energy bills, I have said that contingency planning is taking place for every eventuality. I agree with what he says about data, and of course that work is ongoing. It is very important that we keep costs down for everyone, while providing support for those who need it most and acting within our fiscal rules to keep inflation and interest rates as low as possible.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I am not going to test the noble Lord’s legendary diplomatic skills in answering this question but, last year, the Prime Minister said that “security and defence” were

“not one priority amongst many others but the central organising principle of government. The first thought in the morning, the last at night, the pillar on which everything else stands or falls”.

In light of the Statement that the Chancellor delivered the other day, could the noble Lord confirm that that statement from the Prime Minister is still the case and that defence is the overall organising principle of government? Can he therefore explain when we will see a rapid rise in defence spending and why current forecasts show a welfare spending increase way above that of defence?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He knows that the previous Government increased welfare spending by £88 billion in their last five years, which is quite a legacy for us to have inherited. He also knows that we are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the Cold War. As I have said already, the Chancellor has approved access for the Ministry of Defence to use the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities in the Middle East.

He asked me how we will increase defence spending. We are investing £270 billion over this Parliament, after years of our Armed Forces being neglected under the previous Government. We will increase defence spending to 2.6% of GDP from 2027 and we are increasing spending on defence by £5 billion in this year alone. Our ambition is to reach 3% in the next Parliament, when fiscal and economic conditions allow. We are not going to put an arbitrary date on that percentage until we know exactly where the money is coming from.

I should also say that, this week, the Chancellor announced a new defence procurement mechanism. A core group of NATO allies—Finland, the Netherlands, the UK and other partners—have announced that they are exploring setting up a new mechanism for financing by 2027. The aim is to aggregate demand to drive joint procurement, accelerate defence investment and increase the availability of critical capabilities.

Reducing Government Spending

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The Debt Management Office’s operations continue to see strong demand, with efficient pricing. As I have said already, this year the Government will reduce the deficit by £20 billion since last year from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP, and global financial market volatility means it is more important than ever to have a robust fiscal framework, with fiscal rules that provide stability, ensure our public services are sustainably funded and reduce the burden on future generations.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, in January the Chancellor said that the UK is

“in a very strong position”

to withstand new shocks to the public finances without further tax rises. Can the Minister repeat that assurance?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Of course, I agree with everything the Chancellor says. Since coming to office, this Government have implemented an economic plan to bring stability to the public finances and to strengthen Britain’s economy for the long term. The forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility, published last month, showed that our plan is working and that we enter this period of global uncertainty with the fundamentals of our economy strong. We have cut inflation, which is standing now at 3%, a lower base than at the outset of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We have prioritised growth to drive up living standards and have stabilised the public finances, having already reduced the deficit by £20 billion this year, from 5.2% to 4.3% of GDP.

Business Rates

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of consumer confidence—and six interest rate cuts since the election is very important to bolstering that consumer confidence. It is the fastest pace of interest rate cuts for 17 years, and the action we took in the Budget to further cut inflation and bear down on borrowing will support the Bank of England in the work it is doing to reduce interest rates. I also agree with what the noble Lord says about out-of-town online giants, and that is why we are reforming the business rates system. As I said, we are introducing permanently lower tax rates for over 750,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties, and we are funding that with higher rates on the most valuable properties, including the warehouses used by online giants. But I absolutely understand what the noble Lord is saying, and I am more than happy to look at that as part of the work to develop the high street strategy.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord shed some light on when the review of hotels is likely to report and conclude, and when hoteliers might be able to see some relief on their business rates?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Hotels will continue to benefit from the support for business rates announced at the Budget. As I have already said, this latest package needs to be seen in the round with the £4.3 billion that we announced at the time of the Budget, including the transitional relief scheme, which will cap increases for those seeing the largest increases. The noble Lord is right, though, to mention hotels, and we recognise that hotels have expressed concerns about how they are valued for business rates. Hotel valuations are undertaken in a different way from some other sectors, so we will review the way hotels are valued as part of our wider valuation review. The methodology used is well established, but as with pubs, specific concerns have been raised with us, and it is right to review this to ensure it accurately reflects the rental value for these sectors. Any potential changes to business rates as a result of that review will be considered at the Budget in the usual way.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No, I do not agree with the points the noble Baroness makes. She says this will raise next to nothing; it will still raise about £300 million for our public services. I do not know whether she thinks that is next to nothing—I do not—and I do not know where she would get that money from if she wishes to cut this. There is also an important core principle that we have maintained: that more valuable agricultural and business assets should not receive unlimited relief. There is, I believe, a need to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief; I think she is saying that she does not agree with that. However, the status quo is not sustainable, because a very small number of claimants currently benefit from a very significant amount of agricultural property relief and business property relief. The top 7%, the largest 117 claims in 2021-22, accounted for 40% of the total Exchequer cost of agricultural property relief, and the top 4% of claims, the largest 158 claims, accounted for 53% of the Exchequer cost of business property relief. We are now getting the balance right between protecting those farms and those businesses, supporting the public finances and supporting our public services.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

Can the noble Lord clarify how much this change will cost and how it affects the forecasts in the Budget’s EFO?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The OBR will cost it precisely in the next EFO. I believe it will now raise approximately £300 million, but the OBR will confirm that in the next round of forecasts.

Autumn Budget 2025

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. Let me start by saying that I have some sympathy for the Chancellor. Her approval ratings are now so low that she is giving even Kwasi Kwarteng a run for his money. Just 12% give her a favourable rating, and from listening to the Benches opposite, the entire 12% seem to be here today, so I congratulate the Government Chief Whip on herding them all together.

I actually agree with some of what those on the opposite Benches have been saying. The Conservatives left office with taxes, spending and debt far too high, and growth anaemic. Worse than that, we and the party opposite all colluded in a conspiracy of silence about what that meant for the nation’s finances. We did not dare level with people before the last election that spending was too high and that either taxes would need to rise, or the state would have to do less. That is the background to the tragedy unfolding before us.

With their enormous majority, I, like many others, had high hopes that this Government, a Labour Government, might be bold in the spirit of other Labour Governments and reform the state. Where are those hopes now? They are dashed. This Government are a ship adrift in a storm, its captain struggling to stop it from crashing on to the rocks and trying to control his mutinous crew, his Ministers clinging to their lines to take as if they were lifejackets.

Like others on this side, I have been in similar situations at that Dispatch Box, so I have some sympathy with the Minister. As I know how demanding these moments are, I do not want to unnecessarily make life more miserable for him. However, I expect him to clarify how this Budget delivers on the ambitions that he and his entire Government have made.

Let me pull together a number of points made by my noble friends. First, on the mission to kick-start growth, is it correct that the Budget contains no measure that materially improves the OBR’s growth forecast, that the rate of productivity growth has been downgraded, and that growth in real household disposable income will fall sharply this year and next?

Secondly, on Labour’s promise not to raise taxes on working people, is it correct that the Budget’s £26 billion tax rise will push 1.7 million more people into higher tax bands, pushing the tax take to a record level?

Thirdly, the Chancellor pledged her Budget would ease the cost of living. Is it correct that, despite the measures the Minister mentioned were contained in the Budget, the OBR now expects inflation to stay higher for longer?

Fourthly, the Chancellor pledged her Budget would “reduce the national debt”. Is it correct that by the end of the Parliament, debt will be almost two percentage points of GDP higher than in 2024-25, with debt interest higher than today?

Finally, the Prime Minister has stated, as others have noted, that the welfare bill is “unsustainable … indefensible and … unfair”. Is it correct that annual welfare spending will be £56 billion higher at the end of the Parliament than today, that by 2028-29, spending on health and disability benefits alone will be double defence spending, and that without further reform, changes will reward dependency and not work? I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

I will end with this. The Government were given an enormous majority to change this country for the better. Millions of people put their hopes in the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, trusting them to keep their word and meet the economic, social and security challenges Britain faces with credible plans. Instead, with this Budget, the Government have not merely broken their word but have dragged us all deeper into the economic mire. That is a tragedy for us all.

Forthcoming Fiscal Changes

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness knows, and as I think I have made clear, I am not going to comment on speculation ahead of the Budget, neither am I going to comment—I never do—on market movements.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister just said that the Budget tomorrow will be focused on protecting our NHS, reducing our national debt and improving the cost of living, which the Chancellor has said in one of her many scene-setters are the priorities of the British people. However, back in May, the Prime Minister said that the Government

“see security and defence not as one priority amongst many others but as the central organising principle of government – the first thought in the morning – the last at night. The pillar on which everything else stands or falls”.

Therefore, why is not defence one of the priorities, or has No. 11 not yet got the memo?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I know that the noble Lord thinks that his question is terribly clever, but it is perfectly possible for the Government to have ongoing priorities and for there to be specific priorities for this Budget. Those two things are not in any way contradictory. He will see what we have to say about defence in the Budget tomorrow; likewise, he will see what we have to say about the NHS, growing the economy and the cost of living.

Budget: Press Briefings

Lord Bridges of Headley Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right to say that there is always speculation ahead of a Budget. As he knows, I am not going to comment on the bond markets, but he is right to point out that the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the economy and sent interest rates soaring.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, on 10 November, the Chancellor said on BBC Radio:

“It would, of course, be possible to stick with the manifesto commitments, but that would require things like deep cuts in capital spending”.


Does that statement still stand?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I have said, I am being told by noble Lords opposite that speculation is wrong and now the noble Lord is asking me to speculate. As I have made very clear, I will not be commenting on individual tax measures.