Rachel Reeves could unlock around £50 billion more for investment through a technical change in her Budget.
The Chancellor is widely expected to change the measure used for her debt target, meaning she can fund investments without relying solely on spending cuts or higher taxes.
Here we look at some of the key questions around her fiscal rules ahead of the October 30 Budget.
– What are fiscal rules?
Since Gordon Brown in 1997, chancellors have imposed fiscal rules on themselves to reassure voters and the markets that they will not let government borrowing and debt run out of control.
Labour’s 2024 election manifesto said Ms Reeves would follow two rules: The current budget would be in balance so that day-to-day costs are met by revenues.
The second rule is that debt must be falling as a share of the economy by the fifth year of the economic forecast.
That debt target is, on the face of it, similar to the one that bound former chancellor Jeremy Hunt, but Ms Reeves looks set to change the definition of debt to give herself more freedom to invest.
– But surely debt is debt?
If only it were that simple. The current preferred definition is underlying debt, or “public sector net debt excluding the Bank of England” (PSND ex BoE). That balances the Government’s liquid assets, such as foreign exchange reserves, against the state’s liabilities, such as the bonds and loans that need repaying.
Ms Reeves is reported to favour a change to public sector net financial liabilities (PSNFL) – nicknamed “persnuffle” by economists.
PSNFL includes a broader range of assets and liabilities, with a big change being the way the student loans are treated – an assumption about how much will be repaid is included as an asset, rather than the whole loan book counting solely as a liability under PSND.
Other illiquid assets, such as funded public sector pension schemes, would also count on the positive side of the balance sheet.
– What difference does it make?
Potentially a huge one. Had PSNFL been used as the target in the March 2024 Budget, the “headroom” – the margin by which the debt target is met – would have increased by £53 billion.
That does not mean that the Chancellor will have all that money to spend. She will still have to maintain some headroom – and probably a larger amount than the relatively small margin Mr Hunt left in his pre-election giveaway budget.
– So what is the downside?
Borrowing is still borrowing, no matter how it is accounted for, and effectively shifts the burden of repaying for the current government’s spending onto future generations, rather than the taxpayers of today.
And an increase in borrowing on this scale could add to pressure on interest rates. An extra £50 billion of borrowing would amount to 1.6% of GDP.
Treasury analysis in 2023 suggested an increase of borrowing amounting to 1% of gross domestic product could push interest rates up by between 0.5 and 1.25 percentage points.
– What about the reaction to any change?
Any change would inevitably lead to accusations that Ms Reeves was cooking the books to get her out of a tricky fiscal hole.
Former prime minister Rishi Sunak said Ms Reeves herself had described changing the rules as “fiddling the figures”.
In its “green budget”, the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies said: “It is hard to avoid the suspicion that the Government is attracted not by any theoretical advantages of a change in the debt rule, but by the fact that it would allow for significantly more borrowing for investment”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here