Contribution
We all agree that we urgently need to get the economy growing again. However, the Bills in the King’s Speech do not represent the big, bold economic change that the country needs. I will talk today about just two things that would create economic growth: trade, and balancing tax and spending through our fiscal framework.
On trade, our country prospers when fair markets for goods, services, capital and labour operate effectively. Trade makes this country great. Raising barriers to trade makes it harder for the economy to grow and erodes the tax base on which our vital public services depend—and the cost of doing business skyrockets, whether for a small business person in my constituency or for a large financial institution here in London.
The evidence of the damage that Brexit has done is in plain view. America’s National Bureau of Economic Research, which produces non-partisan economic research, estimates that by 2025, the Brexit process had reduced UK GDP per capita by 6% to 8%, investment by 12% to 18%, employment by 3% to 4%, and productivity by 3% to 4%. That comes at enormous human cost.
The UK-EU reset has some good elements, but each element, which is being painfully negotiated, returns merely some of the benefits that we all used to have. Our young people may soon have the opportunity again to travel and work abroad. We may rejoin the EU’s energy market, cutting electricity costs and making both markets greener and more efficient. The Government have been working hard on an SPS agreement on food with the EU. That would hugely reduce costs and delays for our farmers, and the benefits would be felt in Oxfordshire and rural communities across the country. It would bring cheaper food to supermarket shelves, which is good news for all of us. But consider the logic: the Government are now fighting really hard to rejoin the EU’s single market in food products, while remaining resolutely against rejoining the single market for anything else. Where is the logic in that? Two things are painfully clear. We are expending enormous political capital to recover just a fraction of the benefits we once had, and even that goal is wholly insufficient, given the scale of the challenge that our economy faces. We need to be bolder and aim higher.
I turn to the UK’s fiscal framework. Let us have a think about how well it has worked over the last quarter of a century. In the last 25 years—a period spanning at least eight different fiscal frameworks—we have not had a single year in which tax receipts have exceeded spending. The 2024-25 deficit was £153 billion, which was 5.2% of GDP. The consequences of this are severe: our national debt has ballooned to £2.9 trillion, equivalent to 94% of GDP. When I look at our fiscal rules, the words that come to me are, “Lie to me.” The tradition works something like this. The Government of the day assure the country that all targets will be hit—not now, when it actually matters, but at a completely unknowable forecast date, five years hence. That five-year target rolls forward and is never reached. Spending is front-loaded in years one, two and three, and tax rises are backloaded in years four and five—ideally, the other side of a general election.
Traditionally, voters have been lied to because the alternative means politicians confronting and explaining a financial situation that nobody wants to face. Is this failure inevitable? No, it is not. Other countries have moved in the other direction and cut their debt-to-GDP ratios. Sweden had a financial crisis in the 1990s, with a debt to GDP ratio of above 80%. Its response was the 1996 Budget Act, one of the most rigorous fiscal frameworks in Europe, which fundamentally reshaped how taxation and parliamentary scrutiny interact. Most importantly for our situation today, the principles of this framework continue to command very strong cross-party support. That does not mean that there is agreement on specific spending or tax decisions—these remain contested—but the framework rules themselves are treated as largely above partisan dispute. That is precisely why the Swedish model is so frequently cited internationally. I am asking everyone in this Chamber and everyone listening to think seriously about whether we could do something similar here. After all, we are far better off addressing this very large problem now, before a financial crisis forces our hand later.