Sterling: Rise in Yields on 30-year Gilts

Question

15:09:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the rise in the yields on 30-year gilts to 5.37 per cent, the highest level since 1998, and the effect of this on sterling.

My Lords, the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. Gilt yields are determined by a wide range of international and domestic factors and it is normal for the price and yields of gilts to vary when there are wider movements in global financial markets. The Government are committed to economic stability and sound public finances. Meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable and growth is our number one mission.

My Lords, the annual cost of servicing the national debt is now over £100 billion and is estimated to have grown by £12 billion since the Budget. Gilt yields have leaped up, with the critical 10-year rate now at 4.88%—the highest since 2008. The Government need to grasp the seriousness of the situation and the concern that the OBR report is more than two months away. Their own fiscal rules are in jeopardy. Which of their commitments do they propose to break—not cutting expenditure or not raising taxes? Can the Minister rule out an emergency Budget?

As the noble Baroness knows, financial markets are always evolving so it is a long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. She will also know that the Chancellor has commissioned the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out an updated economic and fiscal forecast for 26 March, which will incorporate the latest data. Only the OBR’s forecast can accurately predict the effect on the public finances of any changes in financial markets or the economy, and I will not pre-empt it. However, there should be absolutely no doubt of our commitment to economic stability and sound public finances. That is why meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable.

My Lords, the issue is one of confidence in the British economy. Today, Shevaun Haviland, director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, called again for quick action to speed up the business rates review, green-light infrastructure projects and build trade, especially with the EU. Do the Government recognise that that kind of leadership and tangible near-term action, rather than long-grass proposals, will give confidence back to the UK economy? Will they take up that challenge for near-term action?

We absolutely will. I completely agree with the noble Baroness. I met Shevaun Haviland last Thursday and we had a very constructive conversation about the measures that the British Chambers of Commerce wants to see to grow the UK economy, which are exactly the same measures that we want to see. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that growth was one of the biggest failures of the previous Government. We are determined to turn that around, which is why we are going further and faster. We are reforming planning, pensions and skills, all of which will significantly boost growth in the UK economy.

My Lords, the House will be aware that this country has an outstanding Chancellor of the Exchequer at the moment. However, will the Minister enlighten me as to what influence she really has on the US treasury bill market, which has shown the same spike as in the UK, or on the market for the euro, which has fallen against the dollar to the same extent as has the pound? Is it not the case that questions from the Opposition Front Bench might have more economic relevance if they reflected some understanding of how global markets actually work?

My noble friend is absolutely right and I echo his comments about the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are limits to what she can do, but she is absolutely able to focus on the priorities of this Government. As noble Lords will know, this Government inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances left by the previous Government. She has taken very difficult decisions to deal with it, every single one of which has been opposed by the party opposite. However, they were the right decisions because we had to repair the public finances and ensure fiscal responsibility. She has set extremely tough fiscal rules—tougher than those of previous Governments—again, opposed by the party opposite. Meeting those fiscal rules is non-negotiable because we will not compromise on economic stability.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the current rise in gilt prices, viewed alongside the market reaction to Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, shows that current market confidence in the UK can be fairly described as fragile? Does he also agree that any Government, of whatever political stripe, is likely to sow the wind and reap the whirlwind if they implement policies that ignore business confidence and stability?

The noble Lord will be aware that financial markets are always evolving. It is a long-standing convention that the Government do not comment on specific financial market movements. He mentioned the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which crashed the economy. Current conditions are very different from then, when long-dated bonds were most significantly impacted due to market dysfunction. That market dysfunction was caused by unfunded tax cuts, unrealistic spending plans and undermining the institutions that are crucial to economic stability: the Treasury, the OBR and the Bank of England. It pushed up mortgage costs by £300 a month, for which working people are still paying the price. Yet there is still no apology from the party opposite, which, instead, tries to defend it.

My Lords, when will the Government’s planning reforms positively affect the UK economy?

They already are. We have seen many planning projects already unblocked by this Government as a result of changes to planning. As soon as this House passes the planning Bill, we will see even more growth in the UK economy.

My Lords, during the 14 years of the last Government, public debt increased from £1 trillion to £2.8 trillion. Public services were decimated, NHS waiting lists tripled, average real wages fell back to the 2008 level and 16 million people now live below the poverty line. Does the Minister agree that the Conservative Party owes the country an explanation?

I agree that the Conservative Party owes the country an explanation—it also owes the country an apology. There was no bigger failure of the previous Government than their failure on growth. First, they introduced austerity, which choked off investment. Then, their Brexit deal created new trade barriers equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for our manufacturing sector, permanently reducing GDP by 4%. Finally, their disastrous mini-Budget crashed the economy and set inflation and interest rates soaring. Of course, they left us with the £22 billion black hole in the public finances.

My Lords, after this Government inherited the second-lowest debt in the G7, we now see business confidence ever diminishing—and the public, too, are rightly concerned. We are also witnessing gilt levels at a 30-year high. Does the Minister agree that the gilt markets are in turmoil and therefore technically not functioning in an ordinary way? Does he stand by his Chancellor, who said that there will be no further tax rises?

If I may, I will correct the noble Baroness: UK gilt markets continue to function in an orderly way. Underlying demand for the UK’s debt remains strong, with a generally well-diversified investor base. The Debt Management Office’s gilt sales operations continue to see strong demand, with the latest auction, held earlier today, receiving three times as many bids as the amount on offer. The noble Baroness mentioned what we inherited, so she will be very aware that we inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We have taken very difficult decisions to deal with that, every single one of which has been opposed by her party.

My Lords, what consideration have the Government given to the Bank of England’s current policy of fairly aggressive quantitative tightening? Do they feel that this is helpful in the current market? Should the Chancellor consider issuing a direction to the Bank on this issue?

The Government support the Bank of England in the actions that it takes.

My Lords, there has been worrying talk about cuts to the social security budget. Following my noble friend Lord Sikka, I ask: will the Government consider the fact that previous Governments, over the last decade, cut £50 billion a year from the social security budget, according to the Child Poverty Action Group, and that poverty is much deeper as a result? Please will this be taken into account before any consideration is given to further cuts to social security?

I completely agree with my noble friend that poverty is an absolute priority for this Government, as it should be, but so too is getting people back to work, and welfare reform is necessary to do that.