Autumn Budget 2025

Lord Rosenfield Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosenfield (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. I regret that this Budget falls short on both process and substance. On process, yes, there was a major error on behalf of the OBR in publishing its documents too early on Budget day. However, the real error was in not publishing the OBR forecasts even earlier—not on Budget day, but on 4 November. For let us be in no doubt: 4 November was a significant fiscal event. The Chancellor updated markets and the public on the public finances and potential policy changes. There were no supporting documents. There was no transparency. There was no rigour. It has damaged confidence.

Turning to the substance, there are three areas where I fear this Budget falls short. First, the Government are rightly committed to what they call a relentless pursuit of growth, but why does the Treasury’s own analysis show that government policies announced in this Parliament, far from driving growth, will reduce outputs in the coming years? I refer noble Lords to chart 1.5 on page 18 of the Budget document. It shows that, while there may be some long-term benefits to growth, the overall supply-side impact of the Government’s policies is to reduce output this year, next year and the year after. We now know too that the OECD believes that these negative output effects will endure for longer. Far from a relentless pursuit of growth, this will feel to many like a relentless assault on growth.

Secondly, the Chancellor sets out a laudable ambition in the Budget to outperform the OBR’s economic forecast. I would love that to be the case, but how can raising taxes on workers and savers to fund U-turns and policy choices on welfare be consistent with that ambition? We need a plan to boost employment, support private sector output and grow confidence, and I fear that this Budget does the opposite.

Thirdly, the Budget rightly emphasises responsible choices to secure the long-term sustainability of the public finances. Yet the Government’s longer-term spending plans seem to be more process than substance; reviews not policies—the review of the state pension age, the Pensions Commission, the Timms review of welfare, the Chief Secretary’s review of value for money across government spending, and the strategic review of assets. We are yet to see choices, details and costings. Even if there were detail on spending, why should anyone have confidence in this Government’s ability to deliver future action on welfare and spending, given their track record to date?

Given the importance of confidence, will the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, take back to the Treasury the suggestion that, in the pursuit of growth and confidence, the Chancellor confirms that should the UK economy perform at least in line with the OBR’s economic forecast, there will be no further tax increases in this Parliament?

Spring Statement

Lord Rosenfield Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord asks me what is compassionate and fair. I do not believe that one in eight young people not in employment, education or training is compassionate or fair. I do not believe that writing off an entire generation is compassionate or fair. I do not believe that 1,000 people coming into PIP every day is compassionate or fair. Is the noble Lord saying that we do not need any reform to our welfare system? I just do not believe that that is the case.

[Lord Rosenfield (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as has been highlighted, the core fiscal judgment of the Chancellor is that the policy measures announced yesterday will maintain the fiscal headroom of £9.9 billion. If that is a balanced judgment, the risk of that headroom growing or shrinking in the near future should be broadly equal. However, in the light of the significant downside risks—tariffs, weak growth, policy risk—does the Minister agree that the risks are weighted to the downside? Although spending cuts and tax rises might not be inevitable, the implication is that it is more likely than not that further tax increases or spending cuts will be required to maintain that headroom.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I was lucky enough to work with him in the Treasury when he was an official there, so I know that he knows what he is talking about. Clearly, there are risks, as I set out to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The job of the Government is to mitigate those risks and pursue a growth policy to ensure that we have sufficient growth and are resilient to the challenges that we are going to face. We have to get our public finances in order so that we have that resilience. We have to pursue stability, investment and reform. We are doing all those things to ensure that we have resilience. On tariffs, we are engaged in a conversation with the United States Administration, so we are doing what is necessary. We have rebuilt the headroom in full and we have, I think, provided the resilience needed to cope with an ever-changing and uncertain world.