Fortifying the Fiscal Framework (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Liddle]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Economic Affairs Committee Fortifying the fiscal framework (4th Report, HL Paper 291, Session 2024–26).

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

This is the second occasion since being appointed chair of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee that I appear before you as something of an imposter. The report that we are debating today was prepared under the guidance of my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Wood of Anfield. Having done his bit in this role to save Britain from bankruptcy, he is now more than doing his bit in the Foreign Office under Ed Miliband, so we wish him well.

It is also my pleasant duty to thank the officials who contributed so much to the report before your Lordships today—most of all, the staff of the Committee, Dervish Mertcan, James Parkin, Neil Mellor and our clerk, Matthew Manning, whose balanced judgments shine through its pages. I also thank those who served on the committee when we took most of the evidence for this report and have been rotated off since. A particularly brutal eight members were removed at the new year. I thank those members who have turned up to this debate—and I thank the three current members of the committee, the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Razzall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for participating in it today.

In preparing this report, we had the benefit of advice from two former Permanent Secretaries to the Treasury, the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Turnbull. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, is speaking today as well. Outsiders criticise the House of Lords, but what other institution in British life could boast that advice on its deliberations?

Fiscal policy is at the heart of our politics. Two key facts about it despite stand out and are rarely remarked upon. First, the OBR, the Office for Budget Responsibility, last July projected that if one simply rolled forward present trends, debt as a share of GDP would be about 270% by the early 2070s. Needless to say, witnesses in our inquiry were clear that that debt level could never in practice be achieved because the markets would stop lending to the Government well before that level was reached. The bond markets would have done their much-maligned job, especially as in Britain’s case—unlike, say, with Italy or Japan—as I think Mark Carney once said, we depend on the kindness of foreigners to fund our borrowing.

The 2070s may seem a long time away, but when I think about it, 50 years were not a particularly long time away for me. When I first started working as a special adviser in the Callaghan Government, in the midst of the IMF crisis, I would wonder whether my job would last more than a couple of months—that was 50 years ago.

The second key point that is rarely mentioned is that debt interest currently accounts for one in every 13th pound spent by the Government. We spend more servicing our public debt than we do on either education or defence, and it is nearly half what we spend on health. These are enormous numbers. A few weeks ago, I introduced the debate on our report on the demographic challenges of an ageing society. I strongly support our new Prime Minister’s ambitions for a radical reform of social care. In my view, it is fundamental to a decent society, and I admire his courage in deciding to reform the triple lock in order to help pay for it. We all know that social care is a huge commitment for the future. We also know that we have huge, unavoidable but as yet unfunded commitments on defence, which in a dangerous world we simply must meet. But in meeting those targets, let us remember that 270% figure which hangs over us on present trends.

This is why the framework within which the Government set fiscal policy is an essential ingredient ensuring that Governments can set themselves on the path towards sustainable borrowing. Our report looks at two elements of that framework: the fiscal rules themselves, which Chancellors loudly proclaim as non-negotiable; and the institution responsible for assessing the Government’s compliance with them, the much-maligned Office for Budget Responsibility.

On the rules, my personal feeling is that Chancellors protest too much. There is some benefit to the Government sticking to the existing rules, but the rules themselves have been shown to be eminently gameable. Debt is invariably shown to fall as a percentage of GDP in the final year of the plan, and the claim of sticking to the rules has limited value if the spending assumptions for the final years of the fiscal plan are of extremely dubious credibility. The risk of gaming was particularly high when the timescale for meeting the fiscal rules was set at five years. Meeting the rules depended on spending assumptions five years ahead that were unspecified.

The present Government—they are my Government and I support them—have, to their credit, shifted to a three-year rolling target to demonstrate a falling public debt to GDP ratio. I dare say Sir Humphrey would have described this as a brave decision because it means that, from now on, the commitment to lower the debt to GDP ratio is aligned with the Government’s three-year public spending plans, and, in our case, they have to be decided next year. This year’s Red Book implies that the Government’s plans for unprotected departments—that is, other than defence and health—would face real-term cuts of some 2.5% in order to meet that target. If I were a Labour Back-Bencher in the Commons, which I am glad I am not, that commitment might cause me a few uneasy nights of lost sleep. But the whole approach to policy remains Augustinian: we are promising to be fiscally prudent, but just not quite yet.

The committee was also generally concerned with the relentless yearly focus on whether the Government have met the short-term rules for so-called headroom rather than the long-term trends, which are more important. In report after report, the OBR has clearly set out the trajectory for debt; it is manifestly unsustainable but no one seems to take any notice. The Government are ignoring this, and we as a committee were concerned that there is a lack of attention to the annual Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report that the OBR produces. Parliamentary time should be set aside for discussing the Government’s response to this report.

Perhaps one reason for the reluctance to do so is the increasingly meagre content of the response that the Treasury provides. Richard Hughes—the chairman of the OBR before, unfortunately, he had to resign—noted that the Government’s response in 2017 was 136 pages of argument, while the most recent was 19 pages, and it was in the form of a Written Statement to Parliament, which of course was never debated. That is not good enough for such a serious matter. Our committee will do what it can to draw greater attention to the Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report. We will invite the OBR and Ministers to give evidence to our committee each year following its publication. The long-term health of our economy turns on Governments grappling with the issues that the OBR repeatedly highlights.

On the OBR more generally, we welcome the change in tone of the rhetoric that was previously unfairly targeted at it. In contrast to some claims, the OBR does not police government policy; it is merely an impartial judge of the Government’s compliance with rules that they impose on themselves. The Government are always free to disagree with the OBR assessment and make their policy accordingly, if they want to. We also welcome the OBR’s approach to forecasting. Projection is not prediction, and confusion on this point underlies misguided attacks on its work.

We heard of the frustration of some at the OBR not scoring the impact of tax cuts or public investment on its growth numbers, but if the Government genuinely believe in the value of a policy, they should implement it whether or not the OBR chooses to score it. Not to do so because of its approach to scoring would be to reveal a concern with meeting a metric rather than promoting the actual well-being of the economy. The Government should be making policy on the basis of their considered view of the economic fundamentals, not on the basis of what they think will lead to narrowly passing rules that they have imposed on themselves.

In particular, the focus on headroom, and how specific decisions of the OBR affect the result of the headroom calculation, are a product of narrow margins. Between 2010 and early 2022, headroom averaged about £30 billion. One might worry that, with headroom in this October’s Budget now falling to £15 billion, we are returning to a world in which OBR decisions about scoring will again be politicised. These decisions should be dry matters, more suited to footnotes in documents than headline news stories. The amounts that we are considering are, in terms of public spending and borrowing, rounding errors compared to the Government’s total tax and revenue spending. Although we accept that buffers are there to be used in tough times, those buffers should arguably be a lot greater than they are.

Sadly, the fundamentals of our fiscal position remain difficult, and nothing in the Budget last week suggests any meaningful change in the country’s long-term debt dynamics. I am expressing a personal view here, but fiscal sustainability is not just a matter of the scale of public spending and taxation. Personally, I want the Government to throw everything they can at growth; in my book, that must include rejoining the European single market. I want a simpler, radically reformed tax and welfare system that removes the multiple disincentives to work with which we have ended up. I would like to see a much sharper focus on public sector efficiency, where the public sector trade unions recognise that the only sustainable route to higher wages lies in greater public sector productivity.

The fact is that the public finances are on an unsustainable path. Apart from the Government’s brave decision on the triple lock, which I applaud, it is unclear how we are going to address this situation. The Prime Minister says that he is in favour of radical reform of our politics and electoral system to bring more consensus to our politics. Perhaps that is a fundamental change; we will have to see. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for an excellent response to the committee’s report. I also thank the Members who have contributed, who have all had something very interesting to say; that is not what you often get in the House of Lords, but every contribution has been of great interest. I will not talk for long, because the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, will be glaring at me about how we have to terminate this debate. However, I want to say just one thing about fiscal rules.

In the 1990s, when Labour was trying to make itself credible under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, I remember having long discussions with Brown and Ed Balls about the fiscal rules. There was this wonderful, simple idea that we came up with: we will borrow only to invest. I think that that is a good rule and principle; obviously, you need to take account of Keynesian fluctuations in the economy et cetera, and perhaps some social investment is justified, but you have to be careful that that does not become just a means of extra borrowing.

I disagree strongly with my noble friend Lord Sikka, who seems to think that you can get away with 300% borrowing to GDP or something of that kind—I do not know what he said. I would say to him that my kind of social democracy, and the reason I supported toughness in borrowing only to invest, comes from what I learnt from Sweden, the most successful social democratic country in Europe, which had always pursued a fiscally responsible policy—except for a period in the 1990s when it got it very badly wrong, and it knew it had got it badly wrong. The truth is that, if you get into a fiscal mess and you have a crisis, it is precisely the working people who you claim to defend who suffer most. That is the myth of the left, which is wrong, and we must have a sensible approach to these questions.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, do I have a moment of reply, since I have been accused? Indulge me, please, because I have been incorrectly represented.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

No, not at all. He has not.