Risk of ‘persistent inflation' could affect rate cuts, says Bank economist
It came a day after the Bank's rate-setting committee voted to reduce the base interest rate to 4% from 4.25% – its lowest level for more than two years.
The Bank has used elevated interest rates in a bid to bring inflation sustainably down to the 2% target rate set by the Government, after inflation spiked in 2022.
Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that UK CPI (consumer price index) inflation rose to 3.6% in June.
On Thursday, the Bank said inflation is likely to rise to 4% in September before steadily falling and stabilising around 2% in 2027.
In his briefing on Friday, Mr Pill indicated there could be more interest rate cuts but said heightened risks regarding inflation could affect this.
He said: 'There is some shift in the balance of risks on inflation. There is a risk of spillover into more persistent inflation.
'When inflation is high due to external forces, we need to be aware of the risk they might affect domestic price-setting.'
The Bank of England indicated that recent increases to the national minimum wage and National Insurance contributions had partly contributed to a recent uptick in food prices.
Mr Pill stressed the Bank will continue to act to sustainably bring down inflation but added that there is 'no set path' for interest rates.
He said: 'Our mandate is that we will get inflation to 2%, that's the target, on a sustainable rate. We will do whatever we need with the Bank rate to do that
'They may be a bit lower than where we are but nothing is set.'
Financial markets are currently expecting one more rate cut this year, before another cut next year, with interest rates likely to stabilise close to 3.5%.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
American Bar Association adopts resolution against Trump's law firm crackdown
Aug 11 (Reuters) - The American Bar Association's policymaking body on Monday adopted a resolution opposing government efforts to punish 'lawyers, law firms, or other organizations for representing or having represented any particular client or cause disfavored by the government.' The resolution, opens new tab is the latest in an escalating conflict between the Trump administration and the ABA, which is the nation's largest voluntary lawyer organization with about 170,000 dues-paying members. In recent months, the ABA has publicly clashed with the administration over officials' attacks on judges and law firms, while government officials have dismissed the ABA as a 'snooty' organization of 'leftist lawyers' and alleged that some of its diversity efforts are illegal. The U.S. Department of Justice has barred its attorneys from participating in ABA events and curtailed the organization's ability to vet new federal judicial nominations. Trump in April threatened to revoke the ABA's status as the federally recognized accreditor of law schools. The rule of law 'will not long survive if lawyers and law firms are threatened and punished for doing their jobs and if judges are threatened with punishment for doing their jobs,' the ABA's new resolution said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the resolution. The ABA has brought multiple lawsuits against the Trump administration, including a pending case filed in July that seeks an order barring the White House from pursuing what the ABA called a campaign of intimidation against major law firms. The ABA said Trump's actions, including executive orders targeting specific firms, have chilled the ability of some public-interest organizations to find lawyers for new matters. Reuters in a special report last month described how some firms were retreating from public interest legal work in the wake of Trump's pressure campaign. The Justice Department on Friday asked, opens new tab a federal judge in Washington D.C., to dismiss the ABA's case, arguing that there's no certainty that Trump will target the business operations of another firm, and that the claims could only be brought by individual plaintiffs, and not the "monolithic" ABA. The DOJ also said the ABA hadn't shown Trump's actions had dissuaded lawyers from taking certain cases. The ABA's House of Delegates is meeting Monday and Tuesday in Toronto to consider a slew of resolutions, many of which relate to the federal government and the rule of law. The resolution opposing attacks on lawyers and law firms also opposes threats to impeach judges 'based solely on disagreement with the merits of the rulings made by those judges.' Since returning to the White House, Trump has issued a series of executive orders targeting law firms over their past clients and lawyers they hired. Nine law firms have struck deals with the president, pledging nearly $1 billion in free legal services on mutually agreed legal issues with the White House in order to stave off similar executive orders. Four law firms successfully sued the administration to block the orders against them, which stripped their lawyers of security clearances and restricted their access to government officials and federal contracting work. Read more: How Trump's crackdown on law firms is undermining legal defenses for the vulnerable What Republican, Democratic judges said about Trump's law firm orders ABA ramps up defense of judges as White House dismisses 'snooty' lawyers American Bar Association sues to block Trump's attacks on law firms
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Minister vows to fix broken nuclear regulation
Ministers have vowed to speed up crucial nuclear projects as part of a plan to transform Britain into a green energy superpower. A new independent taskforce commissioned by the Government called for a 'radical reset' of nuclear regulations this week, taking aim at the current system which it said was 'unnecessarily slow, inefficient and costly'. In its first report, the taskforce said overly complex and expensive red tape was holding up crucial infrastructure projects and increasing the cost of the UK's nuclear deterrent. John Fingleton, the former head of the Office of Fair Trading who is leading the taskforce, said: 'Nuclear energy is safe and reliable and can contribute to net zero goals. It is also vital to the UK's strategic deterrent. 'However, over recent decades, nuclear regulation has become more complex and costly without always delivering commensurate safety and environmental benefits.' He said the current system was 'not fit for purpose'. Miatta Fahnbulleh, the minister for energy consumers, said: 'For too long, big British infrastructure projects have been held back by needless bureaucracy. 'It's time for a new approach to getting nuclear projects off the ground more quickly, and at a lower cost. 'We look forward to working with the expert taskforce to modernise outdated regulations so we can unlock growth, jobs and energy security for the British people.' It comes after ministers were forced to admit that the Sizewell C nuclear power plant could end up costing £48bn to build – £10bn more than they estimated when final approval was given last month. The cost of the new plant in Suffolk had already more than doubled from about £16bn in 2016. Meanwhile, a sister project at Hinkley Point C in Somerset is six years late and £28bn over budget. Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, recently heralded a new 'golden age' of nuclear amid concerns that the rapid shift to wind and solar has left Britain exposed to blackouts. However, the ballooning cost of nuclear projects has fuelled concerns about rising energy bills for consumers. A new levy to help fund Sizewell C is due to kick in this autumn, adding an average of £12 per year to household bills. In its report, the taskforce attacked 'risk-averse cultures that prioritise bureaucracy over proportionate safety measures', which it said led to higher costs and delayed projects. It also criticised complex and inconsistent rules, with processes often duplicated across overlapping regulators, as well as outdated planning rules. The Government said it would work with the taskforce to develop a new strategic direction for the nuclear industry to ensure projects are completed quickly and safely. A final report and recommendation will be published in the autumn. Mike Finnerty, the chief executive of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, said: 'Our discussions with the taskforce have been extremely productive. We will continue to work with the team, providing further requested regulatory expertise, to help inform the final report in a way that supports innovation.'
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Mauritius ‘to receive £35bn' for Chagos deal over 99 years
Conservative shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel accused ministers of trying to 'cover up' the cost of ceding the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, accusing them of using an 'accountancy trick' to price the deal at £3.4 billion. The higher figure, released after a freedom of information request to the Government Actuary's Department, is a nominal amount. Adjusted to account for inflation, the deal is thought to be worth an average £101 million a year in 2025/26 terms, lowering the value to around £10 billion in today's money. The UK Government has agreed to cede the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius but retain control of the military base on Diego Garcia. Ministers feared that without a deal, the base's future was in doubt amid challenges in international courts and tribunals. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers,' Dame Priti wrote in The Telegraph, which first reported the figures. 'But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Dame Priti also warned that 'instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4 billion – still a vast waste of money'. She described the £35 billion figure as 'mind-blowing', and labelled Foreign Secretary David Lammy as ''Calamity' Lammy'. Dame Priti accused him, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, Attorney General Lord Hermer and special envoy for the negotiations Jonathan Powell of being 'the worst team of negotiators in history'. The figures, seen by the PA news agency, show that the Government used a Treasury principle to reduce the figure by between 2.5% and 3.5% per year to £3.4 billion. This 'social time preference', used since 2003, is based on the idea that taxpayers would prefer to get their return on the deal sooner rather than later.
