Budget Responsibility Bill

Stella Creasy 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.

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

I feel as though I am almost in Alice in Wonderland world when I listen to the Opposition response to this legislation. I certainly feel concerned that they, with the Cheshire Cat and possibly following the Queen of Hearts, might have been trying to pretend that their previous Conservative Prime Minister did not exist, or indeed that the former Member for Spelthorne was never ever the Chancellor. Those of us paying for a mortgage—and I declare a direct interest—know all too well that they were in charge and about the damage that they did with their disastrous mini-Budget, which is why this legislation is so important.

I would wager that that what their constituents would tell them if they suggested that the economic harm the previous Government did to this country, for which we will all be paying for generations to come, was solely to do with Ukraine or the pandemic. That mini-Budget was a political choice, but worse than that, it was a politically uninformed choice. The Government at the time consciously and purposefully made the decision on ideological grounds to press ahead with a Budget that cost 1% of our GDP, and to hell with the consequences, as we have all seen. That is why this legislation is so important.

I will always welcome a sinner who repenteth, so I am pleased that the shadow Minister recognises the value of independent scrutiny and, indeed, urges us all to go further. We will always welcome such an approach, because it is right and because our constituents deserve better, because we can see how bad things are and how broken this country is. What this Bill has at its heart are the funds to repair the damage done by the previous Administration. That is why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here today with this Bill to be clear with us about why it matters, why we put things on the books and why sound money is at the heart of it.

The markets did not react by accident and put up all our mortgages; they saw with terror the damage that bad leadership in the Treasury can do and have accordingly asked us to meet that challenge. Frankly, there is nothing progressive about crashing the economy, and that is exactly what the previous Government did. By putting on the record the need to report independently on fiscally significant measures, we are starting with a clean sheet and saying that we will not take such a reckless approach with other people’s money. At the end of the day, that is what this is: the tax revenues that are generated are the moneys of our constituents, and it is therefore right that we are careful about how we administer them.

However, I recognise that there are challenges in this legislation. I am speaking today because I hope to hear from the Ministers on the Front Bench further clarity about the concept of “fiscally significant”. As somebody who has always liked to be hawkish about public money, I think it is important that we are clear where we are investing, and I very much urge the Treasury to think about investing to save. I see in our broken society the damage that is done by poverty, poor public services and the higher costs that come with that, so I want us to be clear about the funding we have, where it is coming from and why every penny matters.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As the hon. Lady knows, the new Government have intimated that they may decide to mirror much new EU legislation, which could well have budgetary consequences. She and I have not quite always seen eye to eye on Europe, but does she agree, in that context, that it is actually a bad mistake to do what the Government want to do tonight and abolish the European Scrutiny Committee?

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Member pre-empts many of my concerns. There is a very strong story to tell about good fiscal discipline, but it is not possible to do that independently in a modern, global economy, so the scrutiny that we can provide in this place of a whole range of regulations does matter. Those include financial regulations—I think particularly about the City and issues around a financial transaction tax, for example. I have not yet convinced him of the merits of working more closely with Europe, but I am confident that one day we can do so. I agree with him, however, that this House should be fully part of that, just as I believe in the principles behind the Bill—that disinfectant comes from transparency and our ability to see what is going on. That is why the Government are so right to bring this legislation forward.

Let me move on to some areas where it is right to ask what we mean by fiscally significant. The right hon. Member and I might disagree about the deal we do in resetting our relationship with Europe, but there can be no doubt that that will have a clear economic impact on this country. I think of the hauliers who are considering whether they will give up bringing goods to the UK because of the Brexit border tax. The previous Government admitted that that measure was inflationary and could have a significant impact not just on our food security, but on our economy, pushing up the cost of living. Many of our constituents know that there is still too much month at the end of their money, and we should challenge any measure that makes that harder. That will also inflect our tax take.

The point I am getting to is that if we are talking about measures that are so fiscally significant that they count for 1% of GDP, a trade deal would easily meet that criterion. We need to be clear in the Bill what we ask of the Office for Budget Responsibility—which, after all, has provided evidence on the impact, for example, of leaving the European Union—and whether we consider its role in such matters. If we are going to put everything on the books, let us make sure that the public understand fully the decisions that we make and where the information comes from.

Another area in which we as a House need to act is our outgoings, especially when we are being asked to make very difficult choices about some of the most vulnerable in our communities, such as people who rely on welfare, or pensioners who rely on the winter fuel payment. We have to be honest: this country is pretty much bankrupt as a result of the previous Administration. If somebody in that dire financial position came into one of our surgeries, we would sit with them and talk about a debt relief order. We would look at their costs and particularly at consolidating the debts that they may have.

Many colleagues here will know that for many years I have been concerned about legal loan sharking. That is not just in people’s private lives, but in the public sector, and I consider the private finance initiative to be the legal loan sharking of the public sector. If we are talking about fiscally significant measures—measures that meet the test of £28 billion—we should consider that we have £151 billion of outgoings committed to private finance companies in this country, against £57 billion-worth of assets. Most people can see that those figures do not add up.

Local authorities spend around £18 billion every two to five years on PFI repayments, of which about £4 billion is interest costs. That would suggest an average interest rate of around 35%. If somebody came into a surgery with a loan at a 35% interest rate, we would encourage them to go to a debt relief order. Our country is no different, and this matters because, individually, local authorities might not meet that fiscally significant threshold, but collectively, they will for us. We are not going to let hospitals and schools go bust and go out of business. Parklands high school in Liverpool was built under PFI. It was closed because there was not a demand for the places, but Liverpool city council is still playing £12,000 a day for that closed school. It has repayments of £42 million left and the company that owns it is making a profit of around £340,000 a year from the scheme.

Private finance companies are on our books, and they should be on our books nationally. They should be considered fiscally significant. We can do things to consolidate those loans and to reduce the outgoings that will come. My contribution to the Bill and the amendments that I might table, depending on what Ministers say, will relate to the fact that I think we need to be clear that everything that is fiscally significant—decisions that we might not proceed with and ones that we do—should be subject to that level of scrutiny.

The National Audit Office has given us plenty of information about the poor value for money of private finance initiatives. Many Members who have these schools and hospitals in their constituencies will have seen this at first hand. There is evidence from the Department of Health and Social Care about what could be done to consolidate loans that probably would generate savings that would be fiscally significant, when we talk about the sums involved. It would be fantastic to see the Office for Budget Responsibility pick this matter up as part of our knowing how much we have to pay out as a country; how much of a contribution we need to make. This money is going to private companies that, on the whole, are not paying tax in this country, so it is not generating revenue that can go back into paying for the repairs that need to come.

The previous Government started to look at these issues and then walked away. I know that this Government, with their commitment to fiscal discipline and fiscal transparency, will want to be open about the benefits, costs and fiscal significance both of the trade deals that we might make and of private finance initiatives. I look forward to hearing from Ministers about that. This is a very different world—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister is smiling. I am sure that he misses his colleague from Spelthorne, but I know he will not miss the opportunity to say sorry to all our constituents for the mess we have been left in and the reason why we need this legislation on the discipline of the OBR, and for the failure to tackle the long-term problems that have left legal loan sharks and poor trading opportunities for our constituents, because they are going to pick up the pieces for generations to come.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

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

[Andrew Griffith]

It is a delight as ever to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) on his maiden speech and his kind comments about his predecessor Jane Hunt, a great colleague of this House. It was one of my great pleasures in my previous role as Minister for science and research to visit the fine university he now represents; I wish him and them well, and I wish him all the best of luck with those on his Front Bench in procuring the financial support he seeks.

This is a disreputable Bill, if we are brutally honest. It is a piece of political theatre, which all of us on both sides of this House should think very strongly about giving our support to. This history of this place is of legislation made in haste, which this House subsequently repents at leisure. I say this in all seriousness and in the spirit of this place: at a time when there is low trust in politics, did our constituents—did the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, when they trooped to the ballot box and returned him to this place only weeks ago—seriously expect that our role would be to give away even more of our responsibilities? Can any of us, hand on heart, say that our constituents know what and who the OBR is? Did the electors of Bristol North West, Hampstead and Highgate, Richmond Park or, indeed, Arundel and South Downs send us to this place only to give away our duties and responsibility to the unnamed, unknown and unelected officials—well-meaning, no doubt—of the Office for Budget Responsibility? Hands on the face of a stopped clock are sometimes more accurate than the OBR forecasts, as they are at least correct twice a day for sure.

In truth, this legislation, put together at breakneck speed, has more holes than a Swiss cheese. If we look at clause 1(3), who decides the “costing”? Proposed new section 4A exempts any measure that is intended, at the time of its introduction, to be temporary. Members of this House will be familiar with the fact that income tax itself, one of the largest ever fiscal measures, was intended to be temporary; perhaps the Minister will address that fact when he winds up. Income tax was introduced by Pitt the Younger in 1799 as a temporary measure. Well, here we are, 225 years later, and that temporary measure is still going extremely strong.

Who defines what is and is not a fiscal measure—a measure with a potential impact on the GDP of this country? Many things decided in this House will have a direct or indirect impact on the GDP of this country; the decision by Tony Blair to take us to war without a vote in this House undoubtedly had an impact on our GDP. Decisions to introduce a four-day working week—if this House so chooses to make them, as is its right—would have a material impact on the GDP of this country. The Centre for Business and Economic Research estimates that every bank holiday costs this country a sum approaching £3.6 billion. Three, four, five or six bank holidays add up to a 1% impact on GDP, which I speculate may be the threshold for the OBR to intervene.

On trade deals, if those on the Government Benches fulfilled their ambition to realign with Europe—to federate and once again abrogate our trade to Europe—that would potentially have a material fiscal impact on GDP. There are very few domains of this House—very few of the decisions that our constituents have sent us here to legislate and decide on their behalf—that would not potentially fall foul of this rule.

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

I will delight the hon. Gentleman, because, as I am sure he saw on the amendment paper, I have tabled an amendment that would look at trade deals. One of the reasons why I felt compelled to do that, and explore this question that he raises about the economic impact, is that while he was in government and, indeed, a Treasury Minister, the Government did not publish any information for the very trade deals he is talking about. I will always welcome a sinner who repenteth but, for the avoidance of doubt, is he saying that he now believes there should be independent scrutiny of things such as the trade and co-operation agreement?

[Andrew Griffith]

It is good to have a proper debate. I certainly think that if we want and seek good government—which, like the human condition, is not a perfect state, but a state that we should seek constantly to perfect—the highest levels of transparency and the very important exercise in Government publishing of impact assessments when they make material decisions, as required by Cabinet Office guidance, are things that the whole House should join hands and agree on. It is one of the reasons why I asked my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), whether the Government had published an impact assessment on their callous decision to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from so many pensioners. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) will well know that the process of trade deals undergoes extensive scrutiny in this House, and I took one of those trade deals through that process of scrutiny in a former life.

I will conclude, because I simply want to alert hon. Members to what they are potentially doing as they seek to support this Bill. It is not for partisan or political advantage, but about the important role of Parliament, which has been litigated many times in this Chamber and in debate.

[Andrew Griffith]

As ever, the hon. Member makes an important and weighty contribution. He is exactly right about the direction of travel. On both sides of the House, we will all find our own particular point on the envelope when it comes to the balance around organisations that can hold us to account and, in particular, hold a mirror to Government and ensure that this House acts with the best, most accurate and well-meaning data.

My core point is that we are sent here by our constituents. I again congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough, who has been sent here on behalf of his constituents and has given a fine speech today, but I do not believe—he may intervene and correct me—that the citizens of Loughborough, whether they voted for Jane Hunt or for him, intended that one of the very first actions he and we would take as legislators would be to award more of our powers and place more fetters on ourselves. This is the right Chamber for accountability. We should hold ourselves to account; we have a number of ways in which to do that to ourselves. The hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) makes a very real point about quangos, arm’s length bodies and how we hold ourselves to account.

That is my point. I understand that many colleagues wish to get in. I support the amendment put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham, because it is quite right that we have rules. I was an accountant by training, and the first thing we learn—whether someone is an accountant or in performance sport—is that we play by the rules as they are; we do not seek to rig the rules in our favour.

[Ms Creasy]

It is a pleasure to speak in the same debate as the maiden speech given by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). I am sure other speeches are coming that will show just how impressive the new generation of MPs is across the House.

It is also a joy to follow the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), because I have always enjoyed the experience of listening to him. When he was a Treasury Minister in the previous Government, I watched him, debated with him and tried to encourage him to take on the buy now, pay later lenders—that is related to what I will say about legal loan sharking. But I have to be honest: being lectured by former Conservative Ministers about fiscal probity is a bit like being lectured by Toad of Toad Hall about safe driving, given the experiences of many of our constituents, which have led to the need for this legislation.

I put on record my support for this legislation, because frankly anybody who has had to renegotiate a mortgage since the Liz Truss Budget knows exactly why it is needed and why we must protect the British public from the consequences of bad decision making at a national level. As we saw in many examples under the previous Administration, the public have paid the price for that and will continue to do so.

[Andrew Griffith]

Of course, the legislation does not fetter previous Governments, but it would fetter the discretion of the hon. Lady’s own Front Benchers. In that context, does she not have the same confidence in her Front Bench that many others seem to enjoy?

[Ms Creasy]

I am a bit disappointed that the hon. Member did not seek to call me Ratty. I am also quite struck by the fact that he, a former Conservative Treasury Minister, rises not to hold himself accountable for the consequences of decisions made by the previous Government, or indeed to defend them, but simply to say, “You will be held to a higher fiscal standard.” We on the Labour Benches welcome a higher fiscal standard; that is the purpose of the legislation. Political decisions will still be made, but we will make them with the benefit of independent information. He will know that there were many debates in the previous Parliament, and indeed in those before it, in which independent information about and verification of the economic impact of policies mattered but were missing. Indeed, he mentions trade deals, which are an example of where we did not have independent information. I will comment on that only briefly, because my amendment has not been selected—he will be as disappointed as I am about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer]

You are not as old guard as some.

[Ms Creasy]

Yes. But in that time, many of us have had persistent concerns, and one of mine has always been the private finance initiative. The Government are asking all of us to make and support some very tough decisions because of the economic mess that the country now finds itself in. My view is that we must look at all outgoings in that process. If somebody came to a constituency surgery because they had multiple outstanding loans and could not pay their rent, we would look at the debts that they held. That is the challenge with private finance: it is the legal loan-sharking of the public sector. Amendments 6 and 7 are about the process of getting a grip on our debts and ensuring that we learn from the damage that private finance has done.

Let us be clear: nobody can absolve themselves from private finance. Governments of all persuasions have sought to use that process—the ability to put only the repayments on the books, rather than the substantial cost of borrowing. That started under John Major; yes, there were multiple PFIs under the previous Labour Government; and indeed, the previous Conservative Government continued to use private finance until 2018. That is why, as of February this year, there are still 700 PFI schemes representing a capital value of £57 billion, but for which we will pay back £151 billion in the years ahead. We are asking pensioners to pay more for heating their homes, but we should be asking how we can pay less for the private finance debts that we have built up.

Private finance was about being able to build things such as schools and hospitals. Anybody who has an outstanding PFI debt in their constituency, or a school or hospital that urgently needs rebuilding, such as Whipps Cross hospital in my constituency, understands the importance of being able to access private finance. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not saying through my amendments that we should never work with the private sector; I am saying that PFI was a catastrophically bad deal and that, cumulatively, it would meet the legislation’s targets of 1% of GDP, so it is a fiscally significant policy. My amendments are about trying to understand how we will deal with cumulative debt and cumulatively fiscally significant policies.

[Graham Stringer]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. As a member of the even older guard than hers—

[Ms Creasy]

The original OG!

[Graham Stringer]

I am certainly the old guard from the start of the previous Labour Government. That is relevant because I had a discussion at the time with the then Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, about the cost of PFIs for hospitals. His answer was succinct: “If you want the hospitals, you have to go down the PFI route.” He said that because the Treasury rules were so rigid about finding money for socially needed projects—hospitals in that case—the Government had to work around them, at what would eventually be a huge cost to the taxpayer. There is a warning there about rigid rules and not dealing with reality.

[Ms Creasy]

It will not surprise my hon. Friend that I agree with him not just about his football team but in his analysis. The legislation is about having better fiscal rules and tougher constraints when Governments make decisions. We saw with the Liz Truss Budget how catastrophic those decisions can be.

Many Members will have come across PFI in their constituencies, but it is worth putting on the record just how big it is, because that is relevant to the legislation. We are talking about 700 projects, but each project can be hundreds of individual buildings. One of those 700 projects is made up of 80 schools, for example, which shows the scale that we are talking about. About half of PFIs are held between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. That is how we built desperately needed schools and hospitals, but the cost is absolutely critical.

Some NHS trusts are now spending 13% of their total budget on PFI repayments—£2 billion a year for some. In practical terms, that means that some trusts are spending more to repay what is essentially a payday loan for the public sector than they are spending on drugs for their patients. It is a huge drain on our public finances. In 2020, during the pandemic, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust paid £66 million to service its PFI commitments—the same amount that it spent on lab equipment, surgical tools and personal protective equipment. University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has already paid out £200 million in dividends to the company that owns its PFI, so the money is not just going to repay a debt for building a hospital; it is going out in pure profit to those companies. That is why I draw the parallel with payday lenders and buy now, pay later companies: once you are hooked in, you have to keep paying the debt.

It is not just a problem in the NHS. Hanson academy in Bradford has reached a debt of £4.16 million because of its PFI debt. It is now referred to as the UK’s “orphan” school because nobody wants to run it or take it over, given its financial position. Liverpool city council pays £4 million a year for Parklands high school, which was, again, built under PFI but is no longer needed because of falling school rolls. The council has roughly £42 million left to pay back on that contract for an empty, dead building. The equity solutions company that owns it has posted profits of £340,000 from that project this year alone.

PFI companies have made £111 million in pre-tax profit from education projects alone. That is about £800,000 per project, and the equivalent of 5,5000 new teachers’ salaries. The companies took on the risk of those deals to rebuild our public infrastructure, but the reality is that we do not let schools and hospitals go bust, so they took on the ability to print money. That is what the deals are doing. I will wager that every new and returning MP has had a conversation with someone in local government, a local hospital or a local school who talks about the damage that PFI is doing to their budgets, as if it is non-negotiable.

My amendments are about changing that culture. One challenge is that we have let those companies run rampant. That does not mean that we should not work with the private sector; it means that we should learn lessons, and I think we could learn some very simple ones. For a start, a lot of the companies are incorporated in overseas territories, which raises questions about the amount of tax that they are paying on those deals. Tax was originally part of the Treasury assessment of the deals, which was why working in that way was considered good value for money, and why my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer) was told that it was the best way to get a school or hospital.

We could also learn from payday lending by capping what the companies pay. After all, we cap the returns on defence projects. It makes no economic or ethical sense that we cap what can be earned from a military contract, but when someone builds a school or a hospital, they have free rein.

Above all, we need to know how much we owe, because even the Infrastructure and Projects Authority within Government could not get a grip on the total reality of our PFI commitments to date. That is partly because this has been done at a local government level, through devolution and in silos within companies, but it seems a very simple thing: even if those debts are being held overseas, the people paying them are very much here. In Northampton, there are 42 schools costing £30 million per annum, including £4.2 million in pre-tax profits in 2021-22, and Northampton’s budgets as a local authority are in a very difficult position right now. The firm that owns all those schools is based in Guernsey. In Birmingham, 11 schools are part of the Birmingham Schools Partnership, owned by Innisfree. Innisfree owns 260 schools across this country, as well as my local hospital in Whipps Cross. It is based in Jersey and is making millions of pounds in profit from these deals. We have never consolidated those loans to ask ourselves whether we could renegotiate them as a country and therefore claw some money back, because we do not know who we owe what to, or how much it is going to cost.

Amendments 6 and 7 deal with the challenges posed by the threshold of this legislation. It is absolutely right to set a threshold for what is fiscally significant, and individual PFIs would not go anywhere near a threshold of 1% of GDP, which is about £28 billion. However, when we add them up, it is very clear from what we already know about our PFI commitments that they do. As such, these amendments are intended to probe the Government about how we deal with debts and spending that might not meet that threshold individually, but might do so cumulatively, and to look at what we can do in the future to make sure that if we work with the private sector—again, I am not saying that we should never do so; I am saying that we should learn from PFI—we make better decisions. After all, this legislation is about making better-informed, independent decisions.

That is why I also tabled amendment 8, to learn the lessons from trade deals. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs is right: the Government’s decision to go for the trade and co-operation agreement—the hardest of Brexits—has cost us an estimated 4% of GDP, so again, that would be a fiscally significant decision. It would be as catastrophic as that Liz Truss Budget—indeed, many of us can see that it has been—but we did not have an independent assessment. Amendment 6 and amendment 7, which is an enabling amendment, would ensure that we have an independent assessment of cumulative spending looking at these issues.

I know that the Minister is as interested as I am in what we can do to tackle the drain that PFI represents and work better with the private sector. I hope that this legislation and the concept of putting PFI on the books is the start of a conversation about better public spending, and I hope that Toad of Toad Hall will recognise that maybe this time it is good that they are in the passenger seat.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I will speak in favour of amendments 1 to 4, which were tabled in my name. Once again, I welcome this Bill and this Government’s intent to rebuild trust with the financial markets and across our economy as a whole. The Liberal Democrats are optimistic about the new Government’s stated commitment to building a strong platform for economic growth, particularly after years of Conservative turmoil. I remain hopeful that this Bill can support fiscal responsibility and transparency and help prevent a repeat of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget. The amendments tabled in my name would strengthen the legislation so that that aim can be achieved.

I welcome the concern that the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) has shown for my constituents in Richmond Park and their thoughts about this legislation, but I wonder where his concern for my constituents was when the Government of which he was a part cheered on, championed and voted for that disastrous mini-Budget that so undermined our stable economy, to the detriment of the wellbeing of individuals, communities and businesses.

Liberal Democrats understand how much our constituents have suffered from the increase in mortgage payments, higher fuel bills and escalating food prices. We understand the disastrous effects of the chaos and uncertainty wrought by the previous Conservative Government in their horrendous mismanagement of the economy, and we know that future prosperity can only be built upon a firm foundation. We know the heavy burden that our constituents continue to feel in their pockets and their personal finances, and we know that they deserve better.

As I have previously acknowledged, the broad positive response that this Bill has evoked across the business and finance sector is indicative of the desire for stability, and we welcome the engagement from economists—such as the new hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who I wish well in the beard of the year contest—and industry experts who advise of the beneficial impact this Bill will have on confidence in the public finances. We have carefully scrutinised the details of the Bill to make sure it will achieve its intended aims.

In particular, we have looked closely at the threshold for fiscally significant measures, which will be set at 1% of GDP or approximately £30 billion, and whether the proposed fiscal lock could be circumvented by Governments announcing major changes that fall just below that threshold. Although we understand that the bar has been set relatively high to prevent a large-scale irresponsible fiscal event such as the disastrous mini-Budget, we are aware of the limitations this places on the Bill, especially when it comes to measures that might have relatively small up-front costs to the Government but significant indirect fiscal or economic effects. I therefore ask Treasury Ministers whether a GDP measure alone can adequately capture the impact on the economy of a spending or taxation measure, and whether the Government should examine the possibility of using additional criteria when setting the threshold.