Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Clearly, the Chancellor is desperately trying to raise old ghosts, along with debt and taxes, but her own broken promises are coming back to haunt her and are frightening investors. It does not have to be Halloween for socialists to spook British business. Why does she think that business confidence has fallen faster in the past three months than at any point since the pandemic?

[Rachel Reeves]

I would judge this Government on their record: we secured £63.5 billion of investment right across the United Kingdom, creating nearly 40,000 jobs in constituencies up and down our country—good jobs that pay decent wages. That is more than twice the investment that the previous Government secured at their international investment summit. That shows how important it is to return stability to economy and work in partnership with businesses—something that the Conservative party might want to learn a lesson from.

Fiscal Rules

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

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?

[Darren Jones]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

During the general election, the Labour party committed to bring down energy bills by £300. Now that the election is over, energy bills are going up by some 10%. On behalf of the British electorate, especially the 10 million pensioners who are having their winter fuel payment taken away, I ask the Minister to confirm to the House that the £300 cut is still Labour policy. If it is, specifically how is the £300 calculated, and when will it be delivered?

[James Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for his comment and welcome him to his new place. He referred to the cost of energy. As we know, the cost of energy is substantially lower than it was this time last year, but we are under no illusions about how much more we need to do to make sure that energy bills are truly affordable and that we tackle the cost of living crisis. That is why we have set to work straight away in establishing Great British Energy, alongside our national wealth fund, which will help to invest in the clean energy sources of the future and bring down energy bills for good.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Gareth Davies Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, congratulations on your election. Let me take my first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. and hon. Members in the new Treasury ministerial team, who have taken up some of the best jobs in government. I loved every minute of my time in the Treasury, even when I had to come to this place to face my shadows. I will always be grateful to the officials who so ably supported me and the team.

As the Member of Parliament for Grantham, the home of our country’s first female Prime Minister, I congratulate our country’s first female Chancellor. It is right that we highlight that. While the two are not politically aligned, we can all recognise when a ceiling has been shattered and no matter who is breaking it, we certainly recognise that on this side of the House.

The Bill before us seeks to amend the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011—a Bill, introduced by a Conservative Chancellor, that created the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Bill should be understood in that context, building on a previous Bill that replaced the system where His Majesty’s Treasury would produce its own forecasts and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would essentially mark their own homework. Back then, that was an essential piece of legislation, given what had gone on before. Between 2000 and 2010 the then Labour Government’s so-called forecasts for growth in the economy were out by an average of £13 billion and their forecasts for the budget deficit three years ahead were out by an average of £40 billion. Their forecasts therefore lacked any credibility at all.

It was not just their forecasts that led to the creation of the OBR; it was their management of the economy. Much has already been said by the shadow Chancellor about the higher inflation, higher deficit and higher unemployment that the Conservatives inherited from Labour in 2010. What is, however, sometimes forgotten is that total public spending accounted for almost half the national income when Labour last left office. Welfare spending ballooned by a staggering 45%, and that runaway spending meant that we inherited the largest budget deficit of any economy in Europe with the sole exception of Ireland. The idea that Labour has an unblemished record when it comes to the public finances is, therefore, plain wrong. We Conservatives created the OBR, in Parliament, to guard against Labour’s fiscal unaccountability and recklessness with the public finances. We continue to support the role of the OBR in providing open, fully transparent, independent forecasts for all to see, no matter who is in government.

It was genuinely good to hear that the Chancellor recognised the importance of the OBR when she said that because of the OBR, in her words,

“You don’t need to win an election to find out the state of public finances.”

She was absolutely right about that. That is why yesterday’s supposed revelations simply won’t wash. In fact, if she is so supportive of the OBR, I ask a simple question: why was yesterday’s statement based on internal Treasury analysis, not OBR analysis? Surely if they are very supportive of the OBR they would have asked the OBR to conduct the analysis. The OBR has always said that it would be ready to produce analysis at any time, on short notice.

That was yesterday, and today we are here to talk about the Bill before us. While we are supportive of the OBR, we think it is right that the House should consider a number of concerns that we have, on which we will seek clarification. First, the Bill will require the Treasury to request, and the OBR to produce, a report on fiscally significant measures announced by the Government, with the exception of temporary, emergency measures. The definitions of these terms—"fiscally significant”, “temporary” and “emergency”—will be set out in a charter for budget responsibility as the Chief Secretary outlined. The draft charter text, published alongside the Bill, deems measures to be fiscally significant if they cost the equivalent of 1% of GDP in any financial year. It defines as temporary any measure intended to end within two years, and the draft charter text gives the OBR discretion to reasonably disagree with the Treasury’s interpretation of what constitutes emergency.

Despite some of the rhetoric, we note that nowhere in the Bill or the surrounding documents is the OBR empowered to prevent a Government from taking fiscally significant action of any kind. The effect of this Bill is to ensure that an OBR costing accompanies any fiscally significant action the Government take—nothing more, nothing less. The way in which the Chancellor described this Bill as a so-called lock to prevent certain activity is—to be generous on my first outing—overly ambitious. The Bill is described as introducing a fiscal lock, which the Chancellor promises will prevent large-scale unfunded commitments, but that is not what it does. There is no fiscal lock, and if anything, it is a forecast lock. The potential impact of the Bill is so limited and specific as to lead some to wonder whether, for all the animated hyperbole of the Chancellor yesterday, this is the prioritisation of gimmicks over governing, despite what the Prime Minister said on the King’s Speech.

Secondly, and I say this genuinely constructively, the Government need to be better prepared to clarify what is meant by “emergency”. The draft charter gives the OBR the power to reasonably disagree with the Government’s interpretation of what is an emergency, but this raises questions about whether the OBR is equipped to make such a decision in the first place. What counts as an emergency should mostly be clear-cut, but what about instances that are less obvious, or when unforeseen circumstances come down the track? The OBR would then be straying into political decision making, which would rightly raise constitutional issues. Even if it is ultimately for Ministers to decide on such matters, any resulting disagreement between the Government and the OBR about whether the circumstances amount to an emergency could undermine the credibility of the Government, the OBR or both.

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am genuinely perplexed whether the hon. Gentleman is with the former Member for South West Norfolk, who wanted to see the OBR abolished and not part of any decision making, or feels that the Bill does not go far enough. Either way, does he recognise and accept, as thousands of mortgage payers in this country now do, the disaster of the previous Conservative Prime Minister’s Budget, the impact it has had and the need never to go back to those days?

[Gareth Davies]

We support the OBR. I have been clear on that. We created the OBR, so to suggest that we do not support it is incorrect. I would just pull the hon. Member up on some economic facts. The reason interest rates were so high and mortgages went up is that we faced a global challenge, which this Government will now experience. In office, the Government have to deal with events, and what caused inflation around the world was two things: the war in Ukraine, which pushed up wholesale gas prices to record highs; and the fallout from a once-in-a-century pandemic that the Labour party seems to have forgotten about. Those two factors resulted in 11% inflation, which resulted in the Chancellor and Prime Minister at the time prioritising bringing down inflation, which we did, to 2%. We have now handed this Government 2% inflation, half the deficit we inherited in 2010, half the unemployment and the fastest growth in the G7, so it is a little bit rich to suggest that we take lessons from the Labour party on economic performance.

Our third and final concern—we have others, but I am in keeping this short on Second Reading—is that, in the event that the lock is triggered, the OBR does not need to produce one of its standard reports, even though the Treasury, under the Bill, is required to request such a report to avoid breaking the lock. The Bill creates, therefore, the possibility of an entirely new OBR report, which is not envisaged by the original Act. I would be grateful if the Exchequer Secretary explained that and what it means in practice when he sums up. Although standard OBR reports must be published, it is not clear whether that applies to other reports that the OBR may prepare. If this requirement does not apply, are the Government happy to give the OBR the power to decide whether its costings are published? That is potentially very concerning for transparency.

The official Opposition look forward to more detailed scrutiny of the Bill and its practical implications. Be in no doubt: we support the OBR, which we created to bring in much-needed transparency to our fiscal framework after years of fiscal folly and false promises by the Labour party. At the same time, let us not pretend that the OBR should be the ultimate judge of good policy, that nothing bad can happen under its watchful eye and that nothing good can happen beyond its gaze. Labour Members know this: it is precisely what they argued 15 years ago when we first debated the Bill that led to the OBR’s creation. The OBR should not become too political. It should be a referee, not a player, in the fight for fiscal accountability. In the end, we stand by the principle that the British people, through their elected representatives, should always have the deciding say on public policy. We look forward to debating this further in the months ahead. We will not be voting against this Bill on Second Reading. I look forward to the debate.