Chancellor Rachel Reeves will deliver her first budget at the end of October, providing the first chance for her to change the fiscal rules.
Upon entering government in July, the government said the Conservatives left it with a £22bn black hole, so the chancellor is expected to use the 30 October budget to raise some of that.
Ms Reeves said in November, when asked if she would consider changing the debt target, she was “not going to fiddle the figures or make something to get different results”.
However, she has been urged to alter the rules to let the government access £57bn, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) thinktank.
Six days before the budget, Ms Reeves revealed she will be changing the rules.
Sky News looks at what a fiscal rule is, what the Labour government’s rules currently are and how they will change.
More on Budget 2024
Related Topics:
Image: Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves at the Labour conference. Pic: PA
What are fiscal rules?
A fiscal rule is a limit or restriction governments put in place to constrain how much they can borrow to fund public spending.
Advertisement
They can be set by an independent body but since 1997 UK governments have set their own constraints.
Rules apply to the fiscal deficit – the gap between public expenditure and tax revenues in a year – the public debt – the total amount borrowed to finance past deficits – or public spending relative to GDP.
In 2010, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) was set up to remove the Treasury’s ultimate control over the forecasts that underpin fiscal policy.
The Economics Observatory said the OBR’s creation means fiscal rules should be seen as an “expression of a government’s objectives, not something that dictates those objectives”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
5:52
Chancellor expected to change fiscal rules
What are the current fiscal rules?
The Labour Party’s manifesto laid out the new government’s fiscal rules, describing them as “non-negotiable”. They are:
1) The current budget must move into balance so day-to-day costs are met by revenues
2) Debt must be falling as a percentage of GDP by the fifth year of the forecast – this was carried over from the Conservative government.
How will the fiscal rules change?
The rules themselves will not change.
However, the chancellor has confirmed she will change how debt is calculated, which will alter how much debt the UK officially has “so we can free up that money to invest”, she said.
Ms Reeves told Sky News she is changing the way debt is measured “because there are massive opportunities to invest in Britain and to get the growth and the jobs of the future here for the UK”.
She told the Labour conference “borrowing for investment” is the only plausible solution to the UK’s productivity crisis.
By changing her definition of debt, she could find up to £50bn in additional headroom.
However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has warned against borrowing that much money.
Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, said Labour’s pledge not to increase income tax, national insurance or VAT, coupled with a promise to balance the current budget, means she will not be able to free up additional resources for day-to-day spending.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:23
Will Rachel Reeves U-turn on her budget promise?
How will debt now be calculated?
The chancellor said she would set out details of how debt will be measured at the budget.
However, she is widely expected to use “public sector net financial liabilities” (PSNFL) to measure debt.
This is a wider measure of the balance sheet than public sector net debt, the most commonly used measure of debt since 1997.
It effectively creates more room for borrowing by reclassifying some government debt as assets.
Funded pension schemes, such as local government schemes, and outstanding loans, including student loans, are the main liabilities included in PSNFL.
Using this method to measure debt is expected to leave about £50bn of headroom for borrowing to invest.
Image: Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey introduced quantitative tightening in 2022
Quantitative Easing
Another idea the chancellor is said to be weighing up is excluding the £20bn to £50bn annual losses being incurred by the Bank of England winding down its quantitative easing (QE) bond-buying programme.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, the Bank of England has repeatedly used QE to stimulate the economy and meet the 2% inflation target – creating £875bn of new money in 13 years.
During QE, the Bank buys bonds (debt security issued by the government) to push up their prices and bring down long-term interest rates on savings and loans.
Since November 2022, the Bank has been carrying out quantitative tightening, where it does not buy other bonds when bonds it holds mature, or by actively selling bonds to investors, or a combination of the two.
The aim is not to affect interest rates or inflation but to ensure it is possible QE can happen again in the future, if needed.
In February, the cross-party Treasury committee raised concerns quantitative tightening could have losses of between £50bn and £130bn and said it could have “huge implications” for public spending over the next decade.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:41
What will the budget include?
Exclude new institutions
There are suggestions the chancellor could move GB Energy and the National Wealth Fund, both created by Labour, off the government’s books.
Andy King, a former senior official at the OBR, estimates that could unlock a further £15bn for borrowing.
Exclude projects
Another option would be to exclude certain projects from the debt calculation.
Government officials have said they are working on a plan to publish estimates for how much new capital projects could stimulate growth and how much money they would generate directly for the Treasury.
The home secretary has denied the government is watering down its response to child grooming gangs after it was accused of dropping plans for local inquiries.
Yvette Cooper announced at the beginning of the year that “victim-centred, locally-led inquiries” would take place in five areas after the issue caught the attention of tech billionaire Elon Musk.
But this week, safeguarding minister Jess Phillips did not provide an update on the reviews and instead said local authorities would be able to access a £5m fund to support any work they wanted to carry out.
Her statement led to accusations that the government was diluting the importance of the local inquiries by giving councils the choice over how to spend the money.
Asked by Anna Jones on Sky News whether the government was “watering down” its response, Ms Cooper said: “No, completely the opposite.
“What we’re doing is increasing the action we’re taking on this vile crime.”
More on Yvette Cooper
Related Topics:
The home secretary pointed to the rapid audit that is being carried out by Baroness Louise Casey, which will bring together the data gathered so far on grooming gangs and consider the lessons that should be learned at a national level.
She added: “Most important of all, what we’re doing is we’re increasing the police investigations, because these are dangerous perpetrators and again, they should be behind bars.”
Image: Elon Musk has been critical of Labour’s response to grooming gangs and has called for a national inquiry.
Demands for a national inquiry into the scandal – in which girls as young as 11 were groomed and raped across a number of towns and cities in England over a decade ago – grew louder this year after Mr Musk accused Labour of failing to act on the issue on his social media platform X.
The government refused to hold a national inquiry, citing the work carried out by Professor Alexis Jay, who led the Independent Inquiry into Child Sex Abusethat looked into abuse by organised groups following multiple convictions of sexual offences against children across the UK between 2010-2014.
However, it did commit to holding local inquiries in five areas backed by £5m in funding and advised by Tom Crowther KC.
‘Political mess’
But ministers are facing a backlash following Ms Phillips’ statement in the Commons on Tuesday – made an hour before parliament rose for Easter recess – in which she said the government would take a “flexible approach” by allowing five councils to launch victims’ panels or locally led audits.
Labour MPs angry with government decision grooming gangs
With about an hour until the House of Commons rose for Easter recess, the government announced it was taking a more “flexible” approach to the local grooming gang inquiries.
Safeguarding minister Jess Philips argued this was based on experience from certain affected areas, and that the government is funding new police investigations to re-open historic cases.
Sky News presenter and former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission Trevor Philips called the move “utterly shameful” and claimed it was a political decision.
One Labour MP told Sky News: “Some people are very angry. I despair. I don’t disagree with many of our decisions but we just play to Reform – someone somewhere needs sacking.”
The government insists party political misinformation is fanning the flames of frustration in Labour, and that they not watering down the inquiries – on the contrary, they say are increasing the action being taken – , but while many Labour MPs have one eye on Reform in the rearview mirror, any accusations of being soft on grooming gangs only provides political ammunition to their adversaries.
One Labour MP told Sky News the issue had turned into a “political mess” and that they were being called “grooming sympathisers”.
On the update from Ms Phillips on Tuesday, they said it might have been the “right thing to do” but that it was “horrible politically”.
“We are all getting so much abuse. It’s just political naivety in the extreme.”
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said yesterday that she was “absolutely astonished that Labour has dropped what it said it would do in January”.
“They are clearly uncomfortable with having inquiries that are looking into this issue,”she said.
“They said that they’ll have a pot of money for councils to bid in, but why would a council bid for money to investigate itself?
“We need something that is national. We need a statutory inquiry so we can compel witnesses, and I’m going to make sure that we force another vote.”
‘We will leave no stone unturned’
Ms Phillips later defended her decision, saying there was “far too much party political misinformation about the action that is being taken when everyone should be trying to support victims and survivors”.
“We are funding new police investigations to re-open historic cases, providing national support for locally led inquiries and action, and Louise Casey… is currently reviewing the nature, scale and ethnicity of grooming gangs offending across the country.
“We will not hesitate to go further, unlike the previous government, who showed no interest in this issue over 14 years and did nothing to progress the recommendations from the seven year national inquiry when they had the chance.
“We will leave no stone unturned in pursuit of justice for victims and will be unrelenting in our crackdown on sick predators and perpetrators who prey on vulnerable children.”
Non-fungible token marketplace OpenSea has urged the US Securities and Exchange Commission to exclude NFT marketplaces from regulation under federal securities laws.
The SEC needs to “clearly state that NFT marketplaces like OpenSea do not qualify as exchanges under federal securities laws,” OpenSea general counsel Adele Faure and deputy general counsel Laura Brookover said in an April 9 letter to Commissioner Hester Peirce, who leads the agency’s Crypto Task Force.
Faure and Brookover argued that NFT marketplaces don’t meet the legal definition of an exchange under US securities laws as they don’t execute transactions, act as intermediaries or bring together multiple sellers for the same asset.
“The Commission’s past enforcement agenda has created uncertainty. We therefore urge the Commission to remove this uncertainty and protect the ability of US technology companies to lead in this space,” Faure and Brookover wrote.
OpenSea’s legal team has asked the SEC to issue informal guidance on NFT Marketplaces. Source: SEC
“In preparing this guidance, the Crypto Task Force should specifically address the application of exchange regulations to marketplaces for non-fungible assets, similar to the recent staff statements on memecoins and stablecoins,” Faure and Brookover added.
Under a notice published on April 4, the SEC said stablecoins that meet specific criteria are considered “non-securities” and are exempt from transaction reporting requirements.
Meanwhile, the SEC’s division of corporation finance said in a Feb. 27 staff statement that memecoins are not securities under the federal securities laws but are more akin to collectibles.
NFT marketplaces don’t fit broker definition, says OpenSea
Faure and Brookover argued the Crypto Task Force should also exempt NFT marketplaces like OpenSea from having to register as a broker, arguing they don’t give investment advice, execute transactions, or custody customer assets.
“We ask the SEC to clear the existing industry confusion on this issue by publishing informal guidance. In the longer term, we invite the Commission to exempt NFT marketplaces like OpenSea from proposed broker regulation,” they said.
Braden John Karony, the CEO of crypto firm SafeMoon, has cited the US Department of Justice’s directive to no longer pursue some crypto charges in an effort to get the case against him and his firm dismissed.
In an April 9 letter to New York federal court judge Eric Komitee, Karony’s attorney, Nicholas Smith, said the court should consider an April 7 memo from US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that disbanded the DOJ’s crypto unit.
“The Department of Justice is not a digital assets regulator,” Blanche said in the memo, which added the DOJ “will no longer pursue litigation or enforcement actions that have the effect of superimposing regulatory frameworks on digital assets.”
Blanche also directed prosecutors not to charge violations of securities and commodities laws when the case would require the DOJ to determine if a digital asset is a security or commodity when charges such as wire fraud are available.
An excerpt of the letter Karony sent to Judge Komitee. Source: PACER
In the footnote of the letter, Karony’s counsel wrote an exemption to the DOJ’s new directive would be if the parties have an interest in defending that a crypto asset is a security, but added that “Karony does not have such an interest.”
The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission filed simultaneous charges of securities violations, wire fraud, and money laundering against Karony and other SafeMoon executives in November 2023.
The government alleged Karony, SafeMoon creator Kyle Nagy and chief technology officer Thomas Smith withdrew assets worth $200 million from the project and misappropriated investor funds.
Another attempt to nix the case
The letter is Karony’s latest attempt to get the case thrown out. In February, he asked that his trial, scheduled to begin on March 31, be delayed as he argued President Donald Trump’s proposed crypto policies could potentially affect the case.
Later in February, Smith changed his plea to guilty and said he took part in the alleged $200 million crypto fraud scheme. Nagy is at large and is believed to be in Russia.
SafeMoon filed for bankruptcy in December 2023, a month after it was hit with twin cases from the SEC and DOJ. It was also hacked in March 2023, with the hacker agreeing to return 80% of the funds.