Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)

My Lords, one word hovers like a spectre over this debate on the fiscal outlook: debt. Two years ago to this very day, your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee, which I then chaired, published a report on our national debt, It’s Time for Tough Decisions. It concluded that the UK’s national debt risks becoming unsustainable unless tough decisions are taken in this Parliament to address the major challenges that the UK faces and put debt on a gradual downward path. We found that sustainability depended not just on the level of debt but on having sufficient fiscal buffers to absorb future shocks and on avoiding a trajectory of rising debt service costs. Two years on, our debt stands at nearly £3 trillion, over 94% of GDP, almost £96 billion higher than a year ago and, relative to the size of our economy, at levels last seen in the early 1960s. My argument today is that our debt remains on an unsustainable path. Our fiscal buffer is dangerously small. The risks facing our public finances have grown and are growing still. All this is thanks in very large part to the actions that this Government have taken. Some may point to the fact that the debt accumulated during the last Administration, which is correct. I have argued that the last Government made mistakes, but however critical one is of that Government, one must accept that they faced Covid and the energy shock. Others may argue that Britain has carried far higher debts before—notably after the Second World War. That too is correct. However, after 1945, the baby boom, the peace dividend and the opening of world trade all boosted growth, which helped to lower our debts. Today, Governments here and worldwide face the challenges of the Ds: higher defence spending, the demographic challenge of ageing populations, dependency—large welfare states—and decarbonisation, with the green transition. All these Ds increase demands for higher government spending at a time when Governments are already drowning in debt. Across the advanced economies, government debt rose from around 70% of GDP on the eve of the financial crisis to around 110% today. That debt explosion took place during an era of low inflation, ultra-low interest rates and unprecedented quantitative easing, and in a world that is largely at peace. That world has gone, but government debt remains at record levels and is growing. The OECD expects Governments to borrow around $18 trillion this year. Almost four-fifths of that is simply to refinance debt coming due. Advanced economies spent more than $2 trillion on debt servicing alone last year. Dozens of nations, including the USA, now spend more on debt servicing than defence. In this rising tide of red ink, the price that each Government pays on their debt—ours included—is ultimately determined by investors, by their judgment on the health of a nation’s economy. To coin the Prime Minister’s phrase, it is that thing of being in hock to the bond market. That brings us to the question that bond traders and all of us here today are asking: just how resilient are the UK’s finances? On Monday, the Chancellor told us that Britain is turning a corner. If so, surely debt should be on a steady downward path—but no, it is not. Debt will be higher at the end of this Parliament than at the start, before falling only slightly to around 95% of GDP by 2030-31. Even that fall is questionable. As the OBR notes: “Plans to reduce borrowing and stabilise debt have been a common feature of forecasts since the pandemic, but have not yet materialised in outturn”, or, as St Augustine might have put it, “Lord, make me fiscally responsible, just not yet”. Indeed, the OBR concluded in July that Britain’s public finances were “in a challenging position relative to history and to other similar countries, with … debt having increased by one of the largest shares of GDP of any advanced economy over the past two decades”. It is the structure of our debt that makes us unusually vulnerable. QE shortens its effective maturity, while Britain has a particularly large stock of index-linked debt, so when borrowing costs rise, we feel the effects very quickly. Even before the economic impact of the Gulf war, the OBR was forecasting that debt servicing would cost us £110 billion in 2025-26. That is 3.5% of our national income, which is more than we have spent on education and approaching twice what we spend on defence. By 2030-31, that figure is expected to hit £137 billion. The bond market is beginning to reflect investors’ anxiety about all this. Britain may not be an outlier in the amount it owes, but it is becoming an outlier in what it costs us to borrow. Our 10-year borrowing costs are now the highest in the G7 and the fourth highest in the advanced world. On Tuesday, Britain paid the highest borrowing cost on a sale of 30-year debt in almost three decades, and that rising interest bill is eating into the Government’s fiscal buffer. At the spring forecast, that buffer was around £24 billion. Against £3 trillion of national debt and £1 trillion of annual spending, that is not a buffer; that is a wafer, and some estimates suggest it has already shrunk to just £5 billion. The Chancellor’s optimism cannot camouflage the facts: debt is high and still rising, its structure leaves us unusually exposed to shocks, our fiscal buffer is wafer thin and shrinking, and investors are demanding an increasingly high price to lend to us. In that sense, though, the Chancellor may be correct: we are turning a corner. Ken Rogoff, the former chief economist of the IMF, now puts the chances of a major UK debt crisis by 2030 at more than 50:50. This brings us to a central question: what would convince investors that Britain has a credible plan to stabilise its debt? The answer, I would argue, lies not so much in economic theory as in political choices. A central conclusion of the Economic Affairs Committee two years ago was: “If we wish to maintain the level and quality of public services and benefits that we have come to expect, we face a choice: taxes will need to rise or the state will need to do less. Addressing this will demand clarity as to the responsibilities and the role of the individual versus that of the state. Muddling through is not an option. If this choice is ducked in this Parliament, the UK risks being on a path to unsustainable debt”. Two years on, my argument is not that the Government have failed to take tough decisions: it has, but it has taken the wrong tough decisions. Labour decisions have weakened growth, dug us deeper into the debt hole and increased our fiscal vulnerability. What is needed is a plan to control spending and strengthen the underlying budget so we live within our means, bear down on inflation and the cost of our debt, and, above all, get the economy growing faster. But the Government’s actions have produced the reverse of all that. Let us look at spending. I was intrigued to hear the Chancellor say on Monday: “Staying true to our values means being honest about the need to control government spending”. For a moment, I thought I was listening to fake news. By the end of this Parliament, the Government will be spending around £260 billion more a year than at the start. Public spending will absorb more than 44% of national income. That is a level we have not seen on a sustained basis, outside shocks and their aftermath, since the 1970s. Let us look where that increase is going. Welfare spending is set to rise by some £75 billion a year over this Parliament, to £390 billion. Within that, spending on health and disability benefits is forecast to hit £104 billion, an increase of more than a third. Instead of taking the tough decisions needed to control spending, the Government have chosen higher spending, financed by higher taxes. Working hard, investing, setting up a business, employing more people—the very activities that drive growth and generate the revenue needed to stabilise our debt—are being taxed more heavily. To give one example, the rise in employers’ national insurance alone means an employer now pays around £900 more a year for every worker on median earnings, and the tax burden is set to rise still further, to the highest level on record. Then there is inflation. I fully concede that the war in the Gulf has made the fight against inflation more difficult, but that is all the more reason for the Government to double down on measures to cut costs on business. I welcome the Government’s promise to take an axe to the bureaucracy holding back private investment, but why are they stopping there? If regulation is holding back investment and growth, the Government should take an axe to the burdens they have themselves imposed on business and employers, such as their energy policies and the Employment Rights Act—an Act that will impose direct costs on business of around £1 billion a year. These policies have undermined growth, which is the all-important ingredient to bring down our debt. The Government will rightly point out that there was stronger growth in the first half of this year, but two good quarters do not solve the structural problem. The OBR still puts our potential growth rate at only 1.5% and forecasts GDP per head to grow by just 1.1% a year over the rest of the decade. That is roughly half its pre-financial crisis rate. For debt sustainability, it is that underlying rate of growth—year on year, not a couple of strong quarters—that matters. Let us put this together. What lies around the corner? A higher-spending Government, extracting ever more tax from a weak, debt-laden economy. There is clearly a debate to be had about the role that the fiscal rules play in all this. My view is that today’s fiscal rules, like their predecessors, can be too easily gamed, and we can debate how to address that, but let us not lose sight of the main point. What matters is whether the underlying fiscal trajectory is credible, and that trajectory is shaped by political choices and political belief. Do you believe the state should be the driving force of growth, or do you trust people and the markets? Should the state encourage people to take greater control of and more responsibility for their lives, or should the state assume ever more responsibility for itself? The answers to these questions will shape our fiscal trajectory and the decisions in next month’s Budget. The Minister obviously cannot prejudge that Budget, but, that said, there are some simple questions he should be able to answer. First, does he think British business can afford to pay still higher taxes without damaging growth—yes or no? Secondly, the Prime Minister has said he will use “flexibility” within the existing fiscal rules. Can the Minister define what “flexibility” means? Thirdly, what did the Prime Minister mean exactly when he said: “We’ve got to get beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets”? Finally, what does the Minister think about the current trajectory of our national debt? Is it sustainable—yes or no? My answer to that question is a firm no. We may not face a debt crisis today, but the horizon is darkening, with weak growth, a record tax burden, sticky inflation, rising welfare dependency and more of our national income consumed by servicing the debts of the past. I do not see this as turning a corner. I see it as proof that, after two years of Labour, with its massive majority, we are on the wrong path and going in a very dangerous direction. We need to change course now, before that thing called the bond market forces us to change, and in a way that will be more painful and more costly. Let me end by taking us back 50 years to September 1976. Britain had just turned to the IMF for a loan. A few days later, standing at that Dispatch Box, Lord Carrington said something which echoes down the generations. He said that “you cannot go on spending vast sums of money which you have not got. You cannot go on improving your own standard of life on other people’s money because, sooner or later, they will not lend you any more. … Whether we like it or not—and we do not—and the sooner the better, we are going to have to cut our public expenditure. Of course, it is not going to be nice. Of course, we are all going to be hurt by it, and of course, we shall all have to cut the things we would much rather not cut. Of course, we will dislike it very much. But what other alternatives are there?”—[Official Report, 4/10/1976; col. 953.]