Government Performance against Fiscal Rules
Lords Chamber debate | Lords
Government Performance against Fiscal Rules - Hansard - UK Parliament
UK Parliament
Hansard
Lords8 July 2025
Lords Chamber
Government Performance against Fiscal Rules
Government Performance against Fiscal Rules
Volume 847debated on Tuesday 8 July 2025
Jul
8
2025
Download text
Back to top
Previous
debate
Next
debate
Commons Urgent Question
The following Answer to an Urgent Question was given in the House of Commons on Monday 7 July.
“As the shadow Chancellor knows, it is a long-standing convention of this and previous Governments not to provide a running commentary on a fiscal forecast, and it is for the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to assess performance against the Government’s fiscal rules in its official economic and fiscal forecast. In the most recent forecast, published in March alongside the Spring Statement, the OBR confirmed that the Government were on track to meet their fiscal rules two years ahead of target. It also confirmed that the Government were on track to meet their fiscal rules early in the Budget last autumn.
This is a choice—a responsible choice. When we contrast it with the actions of Conservative Members, who lost control of the public finances, we see working people across the country still paying the price. In line with the usual process, the Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new fiscal forecast in the autumn for the annual Budget. That forecast will include an updated assessment of the Government’s performance against their fiscal rules. As the Prime Minister confirmed last week, the Government are committed to their fiscal rules, which remain non-negotiable.
We have seen what happens when fiscal rules are put to one side. Conservative Members may be chuntering from their sedentary positions, but families across the country are still paying the price of the consequences of Liz Truss’s experiment through higher mortgage payments, and we are not going to put the nation’s finances at risk as the Conservatives have done. In contrast, this Government are meeting their fiscal rules and, as a consequence of the Chancellor’s decisions, are investing billions of pounds in the renewal of Britain: in schools, hospitals, affordable homes and public transport and in keeping the nation safe. Any future fiscal plans will be set out at the Budget in the normal way”.
3.20pm
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(Con)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 8 on
Share contribution 8 on
Share contribution 8 via
Copy link to contribution 8 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, we on these Benches accept that fiscal rules are important, and we have noted the Government’s attachment to the current version and the widespread concern as to where they will turn for spending cuts or tax rises, as it is apparent that the rules are not going to be met. Today’s OBR
Fiscal Risks
a
nd Sustainability
report concludes:
“The UK’s public finances have emerged from a series of major global economic shocks in a relatively vulnerable position”.
We have heard from the OBR that the UK Government have the sixth-highest debt, the fifth-highest deficit and the third-highest borrowing costs among 36 advanced economies. In November, the Chancellor wrote to the Economic Affairs Committee in response to its robust and convincing report on the UK’s national debt. She said:
“The Budget took the necessary difficult decisions to put the public finances on a sustainable path—setting realistic plans for public spending while raising revenue—to create the conditions for growth”.
In the light of the dismal and depressing OBR report, does the Minister agree that this Statement and the Government’s entire economic strategy are in tatters and that the Chancellor needs to write another, more realistic letter?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury
(Lord Livermore) (Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 9 on
Share contribution 9 on
Share contribution 9 via
Copy link to contribution 9 to clipboard
Copy link
The noble Baroness mentions many things. She mentions debt. Of course, the last Government doubled the national debt. There is one reason why we are where we are. It is because of the last Government losing control of the economy—something that this Government will not do. We will meet our fiscal rules at all times. I am not going to give a running commentary on those fiscal rules. Following the usual process, the Chancellor will ask the OBR to produce a new forecast in the autumn for the annual Budget, which will include an updated assessment of the Government’s performance against the fiscal rules. At that time, we will set out our fiscal plans in the usual way.
Baroness Kramer
(LD)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 10 on
Share contribution 10 on
Share contribution 10 via
Copy link to contribution 10 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, the Government have constantly asserted that meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable. Will the Minister now reassure the House that protecting the NHS and social care is also non-negotiable, and rule out any cuts to those services as the Government try to balance the books? Will he also accept that raising employers’ NICs, especially on small businesses, is actually holding back growth? Will
he look instead at what we recommended—raising taxes on the broadest shoulders of the social media giants, the gambling companies and the big banks—to consider some proper relief and support for those small businesses?
Lord Livermore
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 11 on
Share contribution 11 on
Share contribution 11 via
Copy link to contribution 11 to clipboard
Copy link
I normally try to agree with the noble Baroness, but that is one of the most extraordinary questions I have heard in these debates. She says that we should protect the NHS and then says that we should not have the main measure that is funding the NHS. If she wants the investment in the NHS, she has to stand up for the taxes that fund the NHS.
Viscount Hailsham
(Con)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 12 on
Share contribution 12 on
Share contribution 12 via
Copy link to contribution 12 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, on the fiscal rules, may I suggest the following? First, the welfare budget is far too high and must be substantially reduced. Secondly, economic growth is the only way out of our present mess. Thirdly, heaping taxes on primary wealth producers is highly counterproductive. Fourthly, if additional taxes must be imposed, they are best imposed generally, so that most people can understand the consequences of the policies they support.
Lord Livermore
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 13 on
Share contribution 13 on
Share contribution 13 via
Copy link to contribution 13 to clipboard
Copy link
I may have agreed with the first half of the noble Viscount’s question; I am not sure I agreed with the second half of it. But, absolutely, the best way to repair the public finances is through economic growth. That is why it is our number one mission.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham
(Con)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 14 on
Share contribution 14 on
Share contribution 14 via
Copy link to contribution 14 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, since the 2008 financial crisis, this country has built an unsustainable level of public debt in relation to our GDP, and the cost of servicing that debt is a serious constraint on financing public services. Does the Minister agree that any easing of fiscal rules in those circumstances would run a serious risk of creating another financial crisis, with more hardship? Will he undertake to stick firmly to the rather lax fiscal rules we have, as the Chancellor keeps affirming, and try to put up more stalwart resistance to the left-wing Back-Benchers in his party who seem to have got into the House of Commons in rather considerable numbers?
Lord Livermore
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 15 on
Share contribution 15 on
Share contribution 15 via
Copy link to contribution 15 to clipboard
Copy link
I slightly disagree with the noble Lord’s characterisation of the Parliamentary Labour Party, but I certainly agree with what he says about the fiscal rules. They are essential to maintaining our ability to invest in our public services. The second fiscal rule absolutely allows the additional investment into our public services, but, as he says and as I have said before, the previous Government doubled the national debt, and we have to fund that. The more that it looks like we will not, the harder it becomes. I give him that undertaking. Our commitment to the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.
Lord Razzall
(LD)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 16 on
Share contribution 16 on
Share contribution 16 via
Copy link to contribution 16 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the original purpose of the change in the fiscal rules brought in by his Government was to ensure that we did not have a ball-by-ball commentary, every time there was the remotest whiff of a financial crisis, on whether or not the fiscal rules were being observed? As I understood it, there was going to be a five-year look at the fiscal rules, but, as things stand, it
appears that we are going to be subjected constantly to the noble Baroness’s question about whether the Government is complying with them. I thought the whole point about these rules, as they stand, was that that question was unnecessary.
Lord Livermore
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 17 on
Share contribution 17 on
Share contribution 17 via
Copy link to contribution 17 to clipboard
Copy link
There are two things herethe fiscal framework and the fiscal rules. On the fiscal framework, we have moved to one fiscal event a year, which is the November Budget. There are two fiscal forecasts, in the spring and in the autumn. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we should not give a running commentary on the fiscal forecast. That is, quite properly, for the Office for Budget Responsibility to do. It will do that in the usual way ahead of the annual Budget, and then the Chancellor will make decisions based on that forecast.
The noble Lord talks about the fiscal rules. The one thing I will say is that the changes to the fiscal rules that we made when we came into office were to enable us to invest sustainably in infrastructure and in public services, to stop the cannibalisation of investment to patch up day-to-day spending which we saw under the previous Government. It is interesting that the party opposite has opposed that change to the fiscal rules yet still supports the additional investment that that changed fiscal rule brings. Again, I am not sure that that is entirely consistent.
Lord Watts
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 18 on
Share contribution 18 on
Share contribution 18 via
Copy link to contribution 18 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, will the Minister rule out following the example of the Truss Government, who crashed the economy? Has he received an apology for being left such a sad state of affairs in the economy that we have inherited?
Lord Livermore
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 19 on
Share contribution 19 on
Share contribution 19 via
Copy link to contribution 19 to clipboard
Copy link
My noble friend is absolutely right. It is exactly because of the experience of the previous Government—that disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget, which saw mortgage rates spiral and from which working people are still suffering higher mortgage payments—that it is so important that we maintain fiscal responsibility and why we absolutely continue to adhere to our fiscal rules.
Lord Willetts
(Con)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 20 on
Share contribution 20 on
Share contribution 20 via
Copy link to contribution 20 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, today’s OBR report shows that the cost of the pensions triple lock is running three times higher than previously forecast. It is costing over £10 billion a year, and we now know that pensioners, on average, enjoy higher living standards than working-age families. If tough decisions have to be taken to meet the fiscal rules, will the pensions triple lock be reviewed?
Lord Livermore
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 21 on
Share contribution 21 on
Share contribution 21 via
Copy link to contribution 21 to clipboard
Copy link
I know that that is the policy of the noble Lord’s party; it is not the policy of this party. The OBR fiscal risks report talks about an ageing population and how that presents significant fiscal challenges in supporting pensioners. The landmark pensions review, in terms of delivering better outcomes for savers and strengthening the economy, is important in that regard.
Lord West of Spithead
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 22 on
Share contribution 22 on
Share contribution 22 via
Copy link to contribution 22 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, if we get defence policy wrong and there is a war, welfare and the National Health Service will count for nothing?
Lord Livermore
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 24 on
Share contribution 24 on
Share contribution 24 via
Copy link to contribution 24 to clipboard
Copy link
Yes.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere
(Con)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 25 on
Share contribution 25 on
Share contribution 25 via
Copy link to contribution 25 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, in his first answer, the Minister used the phrase, “lost control of the economy”, which is familiar from the election. It is a very telling phrase. Which bits of the economy would he like to control that are not currently controlled? Is not the reality that the problem is losing control not of the economy but of the deficit? I have to ask: in what areas will the Government slow the increase in welfare spending? If they are not going to do PIP or child benefit, where is he going to find the savings?
Lord Livermore
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 26 on
Share contribution 26 on
Share contribution 26 via
Copy link to contribution 26 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, I will tell the noble Lord what matters in terms of controlling the public finances: economic growth, which his Government singularly failed on. Whether it was the Liz Truss mini-Budget, the Brexit deal that he supported and championed, or austerity at exactly the wrong moment for the economy, the previous Government’s record on economic growth was woeful.
Lord Garnier
(Con)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 27 on
Share contribution 27 on
Share contribution 27 via
Copy link to contribution 27 to clipboard
Copy link
My Lords, I think the public are getting a bit bored of the mantra of blaming the previous Government—that is a long time ago now.
Noble Lords
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 28 on
Share contribution 28 on
Share contribution 28 via
Copy link to contribution 28 to clipboard
Copy link
Oh!
Lord Garnier
(Con)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 29 on
Share contribution 29 on
Share contribution 29 via
Copy link to contribution 29 to clipboard
Copy link
What are the current Government going to do about the current problem?
Lord Livermore
(Lab)
Share
this specific contribution
Share a link to this specific contribution:
Share contribution 30 on
Share contribution 30 on
Share contribution 30 via
Copy link to contribution 30 to clipboard
Copy link
I do not think the public are getting bored of it. The noble and learned Lord may be getting bored of it, perhaps because he is slightly sensitive about it. If he thinks that 14 years of crashing the economy can be undone in one year, he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. This Government will stick to their policies and grow the economy.