Sport: Team GB and ParalympicsGB

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Nigel Huddleston

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) to the House and congratulate her on a very eloquent, gracious and personal maiden speech. She has shown today that she will make great contributions to this place over the coming years. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my declarations when I was Sports Minister—I may touch on that in a moment. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the Sports Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), and the shadow Sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) on their roles.

As a former Sports Minister, I know that the role has upsides, but it also comes with a lot of hard work and graft. The role often involves dealing with the downsides of sport—regulation, racism in cricket, head injuries in rugby, financial distress and so on—with sports governing bodies, and coming up with solutions in challenging areas such as trans, where we are all trying to ensure we get the right balance between accessibility and fairness and safety. I know how hard governing bodies work on that, and I know that will be a challenging area for the Minister.

There are some upsides, too. I know there is a lot of noise at the moment around declarations and attending sporting events, but as Sports Minister it is the hon. Lady’s duty and responsibility to get around the country and be a champion for all sorts of sports. I hope the noise around that does not stop her from doing her job. That is really important, because not all sporting events are Wimbledon; the job is also about championing disability sports, women’s sports and lower league sports around the country. I want to see her at those events every weekend. She will not get criticism from me for doing any of that.

There is another downside to being Sports Minister. On calls with Sports Ministers from around the world, they all introduce themselves as the former world champion of this and the former gold medallist of that. Then it comes to the Brit and it’s like, “I’ve got a medal from sports day at my school back in 1984.” Slightly embarrassing! The other downside, I am afraid, is often being required to be in photos along with a lot of very fit, handsome and beautiful people, which is slightly challenging, or being invited to enter the ring to spar with a world champion boxer. I would get asked, “Minister, would you like to participate in the 100 metres final?” with journalists waiting there with cameras just to humiliate you. “No, thank you very much!” But it is an amazing job and one that I enjoyed very much.

If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to say a huge thank you, as I have never had the opportunity to do so. I was appointed Minister for sport and tourism in February 2020. It was the job I had always wanted. A few weeks later, however, we were in lockdown and there was no sport and no tourism. As a result of the work with the various sports governing bodies, in particular Sally Munday and Dame Katherine Grainger at UK Sport, and Tim Hollingsworth at Sport England, and the incredible team at the Department, we were able, over time, to get sport up and running again. I am really proud that we did, because we all know how important it is to health and mental health. And let us not forget that sport is a major economic contributor to the UK. It is a massive export earner for the UK. There are hundreds of thousands of people involved in sport and supported by sport, plus it makes us all feel good and unites us.

That brings me to another point, which the Under-Secretary will find out about at some point in the future, should she ever be unfortunate enough to be reshuffled into a different role. A number of Members would say to me, “We used to like you when you were Sports Minister, but not so much now,” because the role is not particularly party political. I am glad that that will be the tone of today’s debate.

We should not and cannot take the amazing success of our Olympians and Paralympians for granted, and we are all here to applaud them today. They have put in an incredible amount of personal effort to achieve that success. The United Kingdom punches way above our weight in sport. That is not an accident. I think all of us would applaud the work of John Major, for example, on the initiative back in the 1990s to ensure that money went into sport—which was often controversial—through the national lottery. That has continued ever since. I know how difficult it is to argue for money for sport, but sport is so impactful on the health and mental health of the country.

What incredible success we saw this year, not only in the medal haul, which is important, but in the personal success stories and personal bests. The medals are a really good indicator of our global success, in particular —my God!—that of the Paralympians. They were second in the medal table again. That speaks volumes of the United Kingdom. We champion people with disabilities: we applaud them and literally put them on a pedestal. The Paralympics is a way to show what people with disabilities can do, as opposed to focusing all on the time on the things they cannot do.

The UK has a fantastic global reputation, in particular for disability sport. I thank everybody involved: not only, as I say, the governing bodies UK Sport and Sport England, but the broadcasters who put the Paralympics on TV at prime time. The British public watched the games in their millions. That is not the case in many other countries around the world. The Under-Secretary is probably being approached by other sports Ministers from around the world saying, “How do you do it? You have incredible success. How did you come second to China in the medal table?” and TV is one of the reasons why.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, we are very successful. Back in 1996, we got just one gold medal. We are the only country to have achieved gold medals in every single Olympics in the modern era. That is remarkable, and funding is fundamental to that. From 1996, because of co-operation and taking politics out of a lot of it, we have had a broad consensus on backing sport. Long may that continue.

I would also like to take the opportunity—many of us in the House are very proud of our constituents who participated in the Olympics and Paralympics this year—to applaud Olympic swimmer Matt Richards, Matt Skelhon, Issy Bailey, Rebecca Redfern and Matthew Redfern on their incredible success. I know—I have met them multiple times—that they have very proud parents.

Let us not take sport for granted. We like to applaud our sportspeople for very good reasons. Funding is majorly important. I express my huge gratitude and thanks to the sports governing bodies, UK Sport and Sport England, for what they did during the pandemic when I was Sports Minister, as well as for what they do now. I applaud them; they make us all proud. I applaud the Olympians and Paralympians too. They make us feel good and we are so proud to support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I should put on record my thanks to Emily Craig, a gold medallist from my constituency who comes from Mark Cross and for whom Rotherfield recently organised a tea party. If the Minister wants to win a gold medal, she should definitely come to my constituency.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Nigel Huddleston

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 9, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

“(c) or any changes to the government’s fiscal targets.”

This amendment requires the OBR to produce and publish a section 4(3) report at the time new fiscal rules are announced by the Treasury.

[The Chairman]

With this is will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment 2, page 1, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) In any case where the Office has acted in accordance with subsection (2), it may notify the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests of the circumstances in any case where it considers those circumstances may be relevant to—

(a) the Ministerial Code, or

(b) the functions of the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.”

This amendment enables the OBR to notify the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests where the OBR considers that any instance where the Treasury had not requested a report under section 4A(1) in advance may give rise to consideration of compliance with the Ministerial Code.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the OBR prepares a report in accordance with subsection (1) or (2), it must take account of the impact of the measure or measures on—

(a) the UK’s compliance with, and

(b) the fiscal cost of meeting,

the UK’s net zero target as set in section 1(2) of the Climate Change Act 2008.”

This amendment requires the OBR to report on the impact of fiscally significant measures announced by Government on the UK’s statutory net zero target.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert “or

(b) the measure, or combination of measures, is likely to have an impact on—

(i) the cost of government borrowing,

(ii) interest rates, or

(iii) the rate of growth of gross domestic product.”

This amendment broadens the definition of fiscally significant measures to those which fall below the costing threshold, but have wider fiscal effects, by affecting either the cost of government borrowing, interest rates or rates of economic growth.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 4, at end insert

“or if the condition in subsection (3A) is met.”

See the statement for Amendment 7.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3A) The condition in this subsection is that the measure, or combination of measures, forms part of category of measures with a cumulative impact on—

(a) public sector net debt,

(b) public sector contingent liabilities, or

(c) both,

that exceeds a specified percentage of the gross domestic product for a specified period.

“Specified” means specified in, or determined in accordance with, the Charter for Budget Responsibility”

The purpose of this amendment is to extend the definition of fiscally significant measures to include measures with a cumulative impact on public sector net debt or contingent liabilities when taken together with other measures in the same category, such as public projects with private sector partners.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 16, leave out “28” and insert “56”.

See the statement for Amendment 4.

Amendment 4, page 2, line 17, at end insert—

“(6A) After the publication of a draft under subsection (6), the Treasury must consult—

(a) the Office for Budget Responsibility,

(b) the Treasury Committee of the House of Commons, and

(c) such other persons as the Treasury considers appropriate.

(6B) When a modified Charter so as to include provision by virtue of this section is laid before Parliament, the Treasury must also lay before Parliament a report on the outcome of consultation under subsection (6A).”

The purpose of this amendment is to impose a requirement on the Treasury to undertake a full consultation and publish the outcome of that consultation prior to revision of the Charter for the purposes of the Bill.

Clause 1 stand part.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 10, Title, after “measures” insert

“and of any changes to the government’s fiscal targets”.

This amendment is consequential to Amendment 9. It would amend the long title of the Bill.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. May I first take the opportunity to congratulate you on your election? I promise to try not to try your patience over the coming weeks, years and so on, but we will see how things go.

I wish primarily to speak today to amendment 9 and, of course, consequential amendment 10, which effectively seek to ensure that the fiscal lock proposed in the Bill should also include any changes to the fiscal rules and would require the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a report on their effect on public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility was of course constructed by a Conservative Chancellor following the poor forecasting record of the previous Labour Government. Between 2000 and 2010, the then Labour Government’s forecasts for economic growth 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 credibility, and to re-establish confidence and credibility the OBR was created by the Conservative Government.

Labour lacked economic credibility in the past, and I am afraid it still lacks it now. The facts simply do not stand up the false claim that the Government have inherited the worst economic circumstances since the second world war; they transparently have not. Contrary to the rewriting of history that the current Labour Government are attempting, when we took over from Labour back in 2010, inflation was 3.4%. When they took over from us, it was 2.2%. The annual deficit is half what we inherited in 2010, unemployment is about half what it was in 2010, and we handed Labour the fastest economic growth in the G7. The dominant political and economic narrative since the second world war is in fact, as has been widely commented on, that every single Labour Government end up with unemployment higher at the end of their time in power than when they took over from the Conservatives preceding them.

The British public should not be taken for fools. Just because Labour keeps claiming something, that does not mean that it suddenly becomes true, which is why clarity over plans and rules is so important. The fiscal rules are of course restrictions on fiscal policy set by the Government to constrain their own decisions on spending and taxes. The fiscal rules set by the previous Government said that the debt to GDP ratio should be falling within a five-year horizon, and that the ratio of the annual budget deficit to GDP should be below 3% by the end of the same period. Labour’s manifesto for the election proposed the following fiscal rules: balancing the current budget, so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues, and that debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the forecast. On the surface, therefore, the debt rules appear to be broadly the same under the new Government. The Government have even said that they have an “ironclad” commitment to reduce Government debt. It is therefore critical what definition of debt is used for the fiscal rules. Clearly, any changes to the fiscal rules are financially significant decisions because they affect how much the Government can borrow and spend.

On Second Reading, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said:

“Our fiscal rules are non-negotiable.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1263.]

Great, but why then has the Chancellor repeatedly failed to rule out that she will change the definition of debt in her fiscal rules to allow, presumably, for massive borrowing? The Government cannot run from the scrutiny that they should be subjected to if they are considering making such a change. We believe that our amendment requiring an OBR report on changes to the fiscal rules is entirely consistent with the Government’s stated policy intent, and should therefore be fairly uncontentious. After all, on Second Reading, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that

“the announcement of a fiscally significant measure should always be accompanied by an independent assessment of its economic and fiscal implications, in order to support transparency and accountability.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1211.]

We agree, and not accepting our amendment would be contrary to those goals, because clearly changing the fiscal rules would be a fiscally significant measure in anybody’s book. Furthermore, the Chief Secretary said that

“fiscal discipline and sound money is the bedrock of our plans.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1213.]

Well, changing the fiscal rules would be changing the foundations and that bedrock.

Transparency and clarity are important in relation to the public finances, because Ministers should never forget that it is not their money that they are spending; it is the public’s money. The public have a right to know how their money is being spent, and government is about making difficult choices with limited resources. With Government spending being above £1.2 trillion per year, the British public recognise that the Government clearly have choices. It is not an endless supply of money, but it is a very, very large amount. In the last few weeks, the new Labour Government chose to spend the public’s money on pay settlements for their union friends rather than on supporting pensioners. Those settlements are estimated to cost about £10 billion. They also chose to spend £8.3 billion on a public energy company and £7.3 billion on a national wealth fund, so far from inheriting a £22-billion black hole, they have actually just spent £25 billion creating one within their first few weeks of coming to power.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. My understanding is that the Government have not published an impact assessment, as would normally be the case for something with such a significant impact. I think that speaks to the whole narrative that we are hearing from the Government: claiming one thing when the facts speak differently. As I said, far from inheriting a £22 billion black hole, they have actually spent, or committed to spending, an additional £25 billion. That is a choice that they made, so the claim that the Labour Government are having to take the winter fuel allowance away from millions of pensioners as a response to unexpected financial constraints simply does not stack up against the facts, or indeed the words of the Chancellor herself, who on 25 March 2014—yes, a decade ago—said:

“We are the party who have said that we will cut the winter fuel allowance for the richest pensioners and means-test that benefit to save money”.—[Official Report, 25 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 174.]

That is a direct quote in Hansard from the current Chancellor, so no, the Government’s restriction of winter fuel payments is not a response to financial circumstance; it is a long-established, clearly stated Labour policy intent—a deliberate policy choice, but a policy that they conveniently forgot to tell the public about in the run-up to the last election.

I hope, however, that the Government can be straight with the public on this point about the fiscal rules, accept the amendment that we are proposing, and provide assurance to all Members and the outside world that there is no sleight of hand here. We want the Bill to work as they say it is intended to, and to include financially significant decisions, such as on the levels of Government borrowing and the fiscal rules. I would therefore appreciate it if the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in his wind-up that the Government do not intend to change the definition of debt in their fiscal rules or practise some accounting trick to hide the level of Government borrowing, and that they do indeed wish to be clear and transparent about the public finances. If Labour Members vote against our amendment, it will merely prove that they are planning to change their fiscal rules in the Budget to borrow more money, increase debt, and run away from independent OBR scrutiny—the very opposite of the stated intent of the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call Dr Jeevun Sandher to make his maiden speech.