PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Fiscal Rules - 28 October 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement to the House about the action the Chancellor will take this week to fix the foundations and rebuild Britain.

Economic growth and modern public services can only be built on strong foundations. That is why this Government have brought political and economic stability back to Britain. After years of chaos from the Conservative party—chaos that cost families, businesses and public services dear—the British people are now rightly looking to this new Labour Government to clear up the mess from the last Government, fix the foundations and rebuild Britain. That is the change that my party promised the country, and it is the change that we will deliver.

To deliver that change, the fiscal rules that the Chancellor will set out this week will establish the basis for stable fiscal policy, meaning careful management of day-to-day spending and responsible long-term plans to invest and grow the economy.

As we committed to in our manifesto, the Government will have two robust fiscal rules that will guide the decisions we take. The first is our stability rule: we will pay for all day-to-day spending on public services from receipts. The budget was last in surplus under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will return the public finances to that position. The second is our investment rule, which will get debt falling as a proportion of our economy. It will ensure that we can secure the investment that our economy needs to grow, and to generate jobs and opportunities for people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, while maintaining a strong fiscal anchor and ensuring that our debt burden falls over time.

The plans that we inherited from the last Government would have seen public sector investment decline to the lowest level in more than 10 years. The path of declining investment is the path of a declining nation, and we refuse to follow it. Instead, we will seize the huge opportunities of the future to support the enterprise and talent that this country creates.

The Government recognise that sustained public investment is a crucial driver of long-term economic growth, giving the private sector the confidence to invest too, but our ambitions for public sector investment must be balanced against the need to maintain debt on a sustainable trajectory and ensure that we invest every pound of taxpayers’ money responsibly. That is why I will deliver a 10-year national infrastructure strategy next spring, working with colleagues across Government, the nations and regions, and with our mayors and the private sector, to set out a robust long-term strategy for sound investment. That is also why our new approach to overlapping multi-year spending reviews will improve the way that we allocate and spend capital, and why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and I will lead the new national infrastructure and service transformation authority, which will drive better delivery of major projects and infrastructure across the country. In addition, there will be the work of the new office for value for money and the National Audit Office. Those robust guardrails will ensure that our capital spending is value for money, and that our financial investments deliver a positive return for the Exchequer.

Finally, the Chancellor has been listening to the views of institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, and to expert economists. As she has set out, that is why the Treasury has been reviewing the right measure of debt to target in the fiscal rules ahead of the upcoming Budget. The details of that policy will be announced to the House in the Chancellor’s statement on Wednesday, alongside an economic and fiscal forecast produced by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. In the usual way, the fiscal rules will be published in a draft charter for budget responsibility, on which Members will vote in due course. I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.

I wondered whether the Chancellor’s announcement of changes to the fiscal rules would survive the weekend, given the five fictitious freeports that came and went. It was a cautionary tale about the uncertainty and confusion that can be created when policy is not announced in the proper way in Parliament. I welcome the delayed statement by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I am grateful for advance sight of it.

Making a £50-billion announcement at an overseas conference, and not at a fiscal event in this House, has understandably and notably moved markets, creating further uncertainty for an already nervous business community. Although the Chancellor announced change last week, she did not provide any details about what that change would be—a common approach by Labour that is now coming back to bite them as the realities of government set in. The Prime Minister has admitted as much in recent days, speaking of the need to “embrace…fiscal reality” by adopting measures that were never listed in Labour’s manifesto. In fact, the Chancellor explicitly said before the election that she would not change the fiscal rules because that would be “to fiddle the figures”. By going ahead with this latest U-turn and broken promise, she has compromised trust and credibility ahead of her first Budget.

That joins the long list of promises already broken by the Labour Government in such a short time: the promise to cut energy bills by £300—broken; the promise that their manifesto was fully costed—broken; the promise to be on the side of pensioners—so obviously broken; and we know that their promise not to raise taxes on working people is about to be broken, too. Try as they might to sell a different story, just like Government bonds right now, people ain’t buying it.

We are left in the ludicrous position in which the UK—the sixth-largest economy in the world—does not have an operative definition of public debt. Quite understandably, markets have responded to this latest uncertainty by applying a premium to UK sovereign debt at a time when they have been discounting the sovereign debt of our international peers. The markets are also perplexed as to why these changes were announced without an accompanying OBR report. In the words of the Chancellor,

“Never have a Government borrowed so much and explained so little.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2022; Vol. 719, c. 941.]

The Government may think that this will all go unnoticed, and that most people do not know enough about the fiscal rules to know what is really going on here, but let me be very clear: the people will know about this. They will know it and feel it when interest rates stay higher for longer. Treasury advice to us was consistently clear: interest rates would stay higher if the rules were changed. What advice did Treasury officials give the Chief Secretary to the Treasury about the impact on interest rates? Does he agree with Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said that the change will mean

“more debt, more debt interest”,

and that it is “no free lunch”?

Of course, we all want to see investment in our public services and infrastructure. We oversaw the largest ever increase in funding for the NHS, we increased defence spending to the highest levels since the cold war, and we attracted the second-greatest foreign direct investment in the world, but we sought that investment with a view to boosting productivity by investing in technology—that approach has now been scrapped by Labour—and spreading opportunity around this country through freeports and investment zones. This Labour Government are quick to spend but unwilling to explain.

Finally, on behalf of the British people, and the markets, which are watching this statement so very nervously, I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury: what definition of public debt is the UK offering to lenders today, and how much do the Government plan to borrow under an expanded definition? He will say that we have to wait for the Budget, but the Chancellor did not wait last week, so why should we?

I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, but he has some brass neck to stand up in this House and tell this Government how to behave after his party’s maladministration over the last 14 years. May I politely point out that he might be getting slightly ahead of himself? The Chancellor has not set out the detail of the fiscal rules in advance of the Budget; she will do it in this House, in the Budget on Wednesday, and I encourage him to wait for that information. He painted a picture of the country performing so well under his party’s leadership, but he may want to reflect on why he lost the last election so badly.

As Chair of the Treasury Committee, which has responsibility for scrutinising the Budget, I find the timing of this statement a bit frustrating, as we will have questions that presumably cannot be answered until Wednesday. Will the Chief Secretary explain how the guardrails will work? There is the national infrastructure and service transformation authority, the office for value for money and the National Audit Office. What role will each play in reassuring the markets, so that an autumn “sniffle”—that is PSNFL, or public sector net financial liabilities—does not become a winter cold?

I know that the Chancellor looks forward to giving evidence to the Treasury Committee following the Budget in the normal way. To answer the question, the national infrastructure strategy will, for the first time, bring together all the infrastructure and major project asks of Whitehall Departments into one place alongside the economic infrastructure assessments. This will inform the multi-year spending reviews, which will now overlap, so that when an election comes up, we do not again end up with a Government making no spending plans whatsoever, or announcing a load of projects when there is no money to pay for them. We are confident that this better approach to allocating capital will mean that investment under this Government will improve the productivity of our public services and the growth of our economy, and mean a better return for British taxpayers across the country.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Under the Conservatives, the fiscal rules changed five times in seven years, so a change to fiscal rules is not that unusual in and of itself. However, does the Minister agree that what would be completely unforgivable is a repeat of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget, in which they tried to pursue £40 billion of unfunded tax cuts, and which left a long shadow on our public finances? Will he assure us that any additional borrowing that the Government seek will only be for productive investment that will generate growth and fix our crumbling hospitals and schools?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question and share her continued anger about the behaviour of the last Conservative Government, because as she and the whole House will know, our constituents are still paying the price of that Government’s chaos and failure. That is why the first Act of this Labour Government— the first Act that I took through this House—was the Budget Responsibility Act 2024, which locked in the power of the Office for Budget Responsibility to hold this Government and future Governments to account. If we ever again ended up in a position where Conservative Ministers decided to ignore independent checks and balances, the OBR would be able to report its view to this House independently, so that Parliament could hold that future Government to account. I end by pointing to our first fiscal rule, which is that we will pay for day-to-day spending with receipts. Again, that means that we will not end up in the situation that we were in under the last Government, when month after month, borrowing just paid the bills for which they did not put money aside.

Fiscal rules are a tool for responsibility, and we should all welcome rules that help us to act responsibly and invest responsibly. The rules and the accounting definitions that underlie them are not matters of faith, preordained by the Almighty and passed to us on stone tablets; they are there to help us make responsible decisions. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, and with the former chief economist of the Bank of England, the OECD, the International Monetary Fund and George Osborne’s former Treasury Minister, that we should welcome changes to the fiscal rules that promote investment?

I will avoid the suggestion that we might go back to putting things on stone tablets if I may, but I will accept the invitation in my hon. Friend’s question, and say that after 14 years, we have seen the failure of the approach taken by the last Government. I noted in my statement that public sector investment would now have been at its lowest in 10 years, under the plans of the now Opposition. That has been a failure for the economy and for the British people, and this Government will rectify it.

Before the election, the Chancellor said that she would not change the measure of debt in order to borrow more, but now she is talking about doing exactly that. Before the election, she said that she would not increase national insurance, but now she is talking about doing exactly that. Before the election, Labour steered people away from the idea that the Government would cut the winter fuel payment, but they have already done exactly that. They said, before the election, that they would not increase taxes on working people, but now they are planning to do exactly that. Does the Minister understand why so many of my constituents feel that they were misled?

The hon. Member’s constituents will note at the Budget on Wednesday that this party honours its promises—the promises, set out in its manifesto, to protect working people. He might want to reflect on the way that his party failed his constituents at the last election before trying to lecture this Government.

I welcome measures that allow for more long-term investment to improve our economic performance and public services, but I would like my right hon. Friend to address two issues. Is housing one of the areas where more investment might be allowed, to help us achieve our target of 1.5 million more homes in this Parliament? Secondly, will he ensure that where there is public investment, we try to make that investment produce orders for UK companies, rather than many of the orders going abroad? That is the way to create real growth in our economy.

We made a commitment to delivering 1.5 million homes, and we will do just that. On the second part of the question, the whole purpose of the national infrastructure strategy and the overlapping multi-year spending reviews is to give investors and suppliers confidence that when the Government say something will be delivered, it will, so they can invest and plan on that basis, to help improve the British economy. Frankly, they are starting from a position of complete dismay because of the failed promises of the last Government; we will rectify that.

If we could stick with the here and now, what the Chancellor announced caused the bond markets to move almost immediately by almost 0.5%. That means that interest rates will stay higher for longer. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that will cause hardship to today’s mortgage payers and tomorrow’s generation of taxpayers, because they will have to repay this extra debt?

What I can confirm is that what affected interest rates and mortgage payments so severely was the chaotic behaviour of the hon. Gentleman’s party in government before the last election. That is why we have had to legislate to make sure that if they ever returned to Government, they could not behave in similar ways. We are taking a responsible approach to public spending, as I have set out today, and we will never return to the activities of his party in government.

There appears to be some confusion among those on the Opposition Benches when talking about their track record and about the records they have broken on the relationship between the nominal and the real. On the point about being realistic, does the Minister agree that in our reform of the fiscal rules, we must, unlike the last Government, provide that realism and stability and ensure that wild unfunded commitments, such as the abolition of national insurance, do not occur?

My hon. Friend points rightly to the £22 billion black hole that we are having to clear up after the Tory party. In the Budget on Wednesday, the Chancellor will set out how we are resetting public finances and fixing the foundations, so that we can get on and deliver our manifesto.

In outline terms, we welcome what the Government are seeking to do. It is important to raise the ability to generate capital infrastructure investment. Scotland invests 42% more than the UK average, and the UK average is 50% lower than the OECD average. That issue is a priority, but the Government’s move will fall on stony ground if on Wednesday the Chancellor continues with her priority to not lift people out of poverty and to go by exception after small businesses that take an income from that business by raising the cost of employment. With the four signal capital investment projects all being in England, I am moved to ask: what’s in this for Scotland?

I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman tell the House that he welcomes the positive change that this Labour Government in Westminster are delivering to the Scottish people. I agree with him. On early announcements, I can point to GB Energy and the huge commitments we have made on energy infrastructure, which we know will be important to the Scottish people. We absolutely recognise that the Scottish economy has a huge contribution to make to the whole economy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we look forward to working with the Scottish people to make that a reality.

I commend my right hon. Friend on his work on stability and investment. Would he like to say a little more about the challenging inheritance he has received from the previous Government, and just how dreadful that has actually been?

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. [Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members find it uncomfortable, but it is a matter of fact that we will return to time and time again, because the sheer truth of it is that the last Government made promise after promise to the British people, knowing that they did not have the money to pay the bills. It is shameful, and the sooner they come to the House and apologise for their behaviour, the better it might be for them in the long run.

If the Minister is so confident in his fiscal rules, will he take this opportunity to commit to the House that the 10-year gilt yield in this Parliament will not exceed the maximum it was over the past 10 years?

The hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever, but he is inviting me to speculate on the Budget. He will have to wait until Wednesday.

Does the Minister agree that sustainable growth cannot come from short-termism and that the falls in public sector investment planned under the last Government would have exacerbated, rather than ameliorated, the economic chaos they got us into?

My hon. Friend is right. We have a choice at this Budget either to continue with the failed policies of the previous Government or to change them. The British people will not be surprised that our decision is to change them, reflecting on the fact that the cut in investment under the previous Government has led to poor productivity in public services and a lack of growth in the economy. That serves nobody.

This statement speaks of giving the private sector the confidence to invest. Can the Minister explain to the small businesses in my constituency how it will give them confidence if the first act of this Government is to soak them with further national insurance increases? Will that not dent confidence, rather than increase it, along with sustained high interest rates? When he speaks about multi-year spending reviews, does that mean that he now expects the devolved Governments to produce multi-year budgets, which is something that the Stormont Government have been reluctant to do?

I obviously cannot speculate on the Budget, so I invite the hon. Gentleman to come back to the House on Wednesday for the answer to the first part of his question. On the second part, he might know that I lead for the Government on our relationship with the devolved Governments. I have met Finance Ministers from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, most recently in Belfast, where we had a productive meeting. They were all very clear that the reset in the relationship between them and the Westminster Government was positive, given the failed relationships of the past. We made some progress in that meeting, and we will make further such progress in the Budget.

Is it not clear that the ruling economic orthodoxy has let this country down over many years? How else can we explain the fact that in 24 of the last 30 years, the UK spent less on investment than any other G7 country? In particular, in post-industrial areas like mine, the investment simply did not come. I encourage the Minister to break with the prevailing orthodoxy and ensure that we achieve the appropriate investment levels and direct that investment particularly to the north, the midlands and elsewhere.

My hon. Friend has invited me to answer the question, “Why wasn’t there investment over the last decade or so?” Quite frankly, it is because of the choices of the Conservative party. This Labour party in government is taking a different set of decisions and we will set out the detail on Wednesday.

First, I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital, and I have a family member who is a shareholder in a health company. As Lord Darzi said, the Conservatives have failed to provide proper capital funding for our NHS. I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Minister for Secondary Care for their engagement with me and other MPs on the review of the new hospital programme. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury guarantee that the changes to the fiscal rules will mean that my constituents can see new and immediate funding for the Royal Berkshire hospital?

The hon. Member asks me so politely, but he will know that I cannot guarantee anything in advance of the Budget. However, it sounds as though he has already experienced the positive way in which this Government are approaching how we will repair the NHS and get it back on its feet, both by getting junior doctors off the strike line and back into wards and by investing in hospitals for the future. I know that he will look forward to the announcements in the Budget on Wednesday.

Before I became an MP, I led services for very vulnerable people and, unfortunately, came into close contact with gaslighting. As a new MP, I am afraid that my contact with gaslighting is not diminishing, and I slightly despair at what I am seeing from Opposition Members. While I was out canvassing over the weekend and talking with residents on Ken Road in Southbourne, I met a constituent who said, “We knew it wasn’t going to be pretty and you were going to inherit a mess, and we knew that it would be a long haul to get things right. But we were sick and tired of politicians who weren’t taking the big decisions and investing in the long term.” Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should listen to more of our constituents, like the person I just mentioned, who happened to vote Labour on 4 July for the first time in her life?

I thank my hon. Friend, and I thank his constituent for putting her trust in this Labour Government. As the Prime Minister said today, this Government will “run towards” the problems, as opposed to running away from them, as the Conservative party did. That will mean difficult decisions at the Budget on Wednesday to deal with the mess that we inherited, to reset public finances and to be able to start to deliver our manifesto. But this Government will take those decisions and we will announce the detail on Wednesday.

I thank the Minister for his statement. I want to ask what the legacy of this will be. Will he further outline how the change to the fiscal rules to allow for more efficient borrowing will not simply pass more debt on to, for example, my six lovely grandchildren and everybody else’s grandchildren, who already face a scaled-back welfare system and increased costs of living before they even earn their first pay cheque? How will the Minister’s so-called guardrails not simply be barriers to future generations owning their own homes and making ends meet? I am thinking of the ones who come after.

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He and his constituents will know, as much as mine do, that the problem for this country before the election was that the last Government had to borrow each month to pay for bills that they did not have the money to pay for, and that they made a whole list of promises across the country that they knew they could not pay for. That is why we have the £22 billion black hole, and why our first fiscal rule is that day-to-day spending will be paid for from tax receipts by the Exchequer. We will put the public budget back into surplus so that we are not in a doom loop of borrowing and borrowing just to keep ahead of ourselves each month. Where the Government do borrow, we will do so for productive investment to modernise our public services and to get growth back into our economy.

New research published this month by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that reversing the two-child benefit cap would lift 540,000 children above the absolute poverty line. There are no fiscal rules, only fiscal choices. While taskforces meet, more and more children in Coventry South and across the country are consigned to avoidable poverty. Will the Government acknowledge that, prioritise ending child poverty and finally scrap the pernicious two-child benefit cap?

I share my hon. Friend’s commitment to wanting to tackle child poverty in this country—this party had a proud record on that when we were in government previously. That is why we have set up the child poverty taskforce, which reported last week, and our ambition is to reduce child poverty over the course of this Parliament. We will set out further measures in the Budget on Wednesday on how we intend to deliver that.

I thank the Minister for his statement. Residents and businesses in my constituency absolutely share our ambition to get the country back on track, and acknowledge that the mission-led focus of the Government and the fiscal rules are at the core of that. They contrast that with 14 years of drift under the Conservatives, punctuated only by 49 days of utter chaos. However, residents and businesses in my area want to be reassured that they can be confident about our level of ambition, so will the Minister update us on how investors are responding to our focus and the maturity that we bring to the debate around the economy?

I point my hon. Friend to our very successful international investment summit only a couple of weeks ago, when it was very clear from investors that bringing stability back to our politics and our economy has been long wanted. That is why we were able to commit to £63 billion of investment in the country at the summit, followed by another £10 billion of investment announced only a few days after. We intend to raise much more to invest in this country and to bring growth back to the economy.

Constituents in Milton Keynes voted for change because they see the consequences of the Conservative economic policy. They are suffering from the cost of living crisis and have seen this in their crumbling schools, the lack of GP appointments and the use of food banks just to make ends meet. Will the Chief Secretary reassure me and my constituents that we will end the Conservative use of payday loans just to keep the lights on and instead invest in new schools, new hospitals and new infrastructure, alongside making work pay, so that my constituents see their lives improve?

With my hon. Friend’s reference to payday loans, she points to the behaviour of the previous Government. As I have told the House this afternoon, this Government, with their first fiscal rule, will take us to a place where we are not borrowing to pay the bills each month, as had happened for years under the Conservatives. Anyone managing their family finances at home knows that that is the right thing to do, and they will welcome the fact that this Government are bringing that sense of discipline back to the national economy, too.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as part of their fiscal strategy and within the fiscal rules, the Government will utilise the national wealth fund to lever in private investment, along with public investment from the taxpayer, for key areas of growth in our economy, including, for example, renewables infrastructure, which is of such importance in Scotland?

My hon. Friend knows that the test of a good Government is whether they can secure private sector investment to come alongside them—something that declined under the last Government. That is why the national wealth fund, which the Chancellor has announced, will secure billions of pounds of private sector investment, alongside public sector investment, in the industries of the future.

Does the Minister agree that the previous Government’s failure to invest not only damaged economic growth, but led to damage to our public services, with a broken NHS, special educational needs in crisis and local government on the brink?

My hon. Friend will know, from speaking to his constituents during his campaign to be elected and since, that people’s experience of public services across the country shows the fact of the matter: after 14 years of failure from the Conservatives, our public services are on their knees. That is why they need a Government who will bring stability back to our economy, invest in public services and improve outcomes for people who rely on them and work in them.

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question, and I agree that £63 billion invested in this country was a sign of confidence, because investors around the world know that Britain is back after years of chaos.

It is good to hear about changes to address the big problem with our macroeconomic framework—the bias against new investment spending. May I draw the Chief Secretary’s attention to the other problem with the system, which acts as an incentive for Ministers not to manage well the assets that they already hold? I refer him to the 2017 sale of £3.5 billion-worth of student loans for just £1.7 billion. Will he reassure the House that the changes that he is making will ensure that we get value for money for the existing financial assets that we hold?

I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance, and I point to the Office for Value for Money, which will work for us to ensure that we improve on behaviours of the past. I also point more broadly to the way that we manage our current assets. People have only to look at the state of our prisons, hospitals and schools, with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and roofs falling in, to know that after 14 years of cuts to investment, we cannot carry on like that. That is why people voted for change at the last election, and why we will deliver it.