Balanced Budget Rule

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lee Rowley

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley]

I could not concur more with my hon. Friend, as I will address in my next paragraph. Putting this into context, about 8% of all current Government spending is diverted towards debt servicing. In 2015, that made interest payments the joint fourth largest proportion of spending by the UK after health and welfare, and on a par with defence. Spending on education, the police and transport pales in comparison with the budget allocated to debt interest. That budget could be used, as my hon. Friend has just outlined, for myriad other more socially useful activities, such as paying for a hospital to be built every four days, or for approximately 2,500 nurses, police or teachers to be hired every day throughout the year. For those of us with a more centre-right political outlook, the £45 billion spent on interest costs in 2015 could even have been used to reduce the size of the state through tax cuts, perhaps as large as 8% or 9% in the standard rate of income tax. If the populace actually knew that such a significant chunk of the taxes they paid every year was being used to pay for spending chalked up 20, 30 or 50 years ago, would they be content doing the same or worse for their children, given the sacrifices and opportunity costs involved?

We know what the problem is, so why do we not just do something about it? Why do we need a legislative solution for this issue? The problem is that we as a country are not that good at stopping adding to our debt. Our Labour friends—who have temporarily deserted the Chamber—have a tendency to spend money without a huge amount of regard for the implications. My party usually ends up having to clean up the mess. Even on my side, there are not insignificant number of people who cannot resist the temptation to spend when it comes down to it.

Our parliamentary system and representative democracy are excellent at pushing the cause of individual spending requirements, many of which, I do not contest, are no doubt noble. Yet there are few people who will exercise proper restraint or promote proper fiscal responsibility to ensure that all of these myriad pots of money are truly paid for. It is always tomorrow’s problem. Mañana, mañana, as they say. The numbers show just that: over the last century, the United Kingdom has consistently increased its national debt and its deficit spending. Both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP, the UK’s debt burden has grown significantly since the turn of the 20th century. The recent political consensus in the UK demonstrated a clear disregard—if we are honest—for the consequences of deficit spending.

Prior to the second world war, deficit spending tended to be closely correlated with war and national defence. In more than half the years between 1900 and 1939, the UK ran an absolute surplus, including during much of the late 1920s, during economic crisis. Since 1945, however, the achievement of a surplus in the UK’s national spending has been relatively rare. Only 13 out of 71 years saw the deficit being reduced, and on only two separate occasions—the late 1980s and the late 1990s—has the UK run surpluses for more than a couple of years at a time.

If all that sounds like one long criticism, it is not intended that way. It is just a statement of fact. Whether poverty or plenty, feast or famine, there is one almost universal constant: the Government spend more than they take in. That is not unique to the United Kingdom, but a feature of western democracy: red ink reigns supreme. The main variable in western liberal democracies is whether they overspend by a little or a lot. France has never run a Government surplus as a proportion of GDP since the 1970s, nor has Italy. The United States has managed to do so only once since 1960. Even Canada, one of the more enlightened in tackling public debt, has only managed to run surpluses in less than one third of financial years since the 1970s. The Maastricht protocol on excessive debt procedure says that countries should not exceed a 3% borrowing ceiling. Just think on that for a moment: there is a protocol that automatically sets an expectation of overspending—just that it is not excessive. And we wonder why debt has significantly increased in most western democracies over the past 30 years. There is an urgent requirement, over the long term, to address this inherent deficit bias in democracies.

The idea that we need to take more drastic legislative solutions is not that new; it is just that we have never properly applied it to national spending before. Sure, the Government have their charter of budget responsibility and an equivalent office creating the data and watching what is happening. Yet the charter requires people only to identify that they are changing policy. It does not really hold people to account or limit them.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On changing policy, I am very aware of where we are at this moment in time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a post-Brexit economy will provide an incredible opportunity to expand and invest, that the Government must be prepared to invest in our own people, and that if we must borrow to do so, it must be done in a reasonable and controlled fashion? As he has said, we must be prepared to back our own people. I hope that the Minister will respond positively and say that he will ensure that there will be Government investment in our businesses. That is very important.

[Lee Rowley]

I completely agree that we have a big job to do after Brexit, in terms of ensuring that our infrastructure works and that our country is well prepared for the future and has the necessary flexibility to take the opportunities that will come our way in the coming decades. If, from a Government perspective, we need to spend in order to do that, we should do so. I am not here to disregard Government spending—it is a force for good. However, it has to be done properly, it must have a clear outcome and we have to pay for it.

Infection Prevention and Control

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lee Rowley

Tuesday 15th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said, the hon. Gentleman has attended some of the debates that I have led in previous months, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in a debate that he has introduced. I know the topic is important to him, and he made a great and passionate case when introducing the debate.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), I am not sure whether I can do justice to some of the issues that have been outlined. I do not wish to repeat things that have been said in a far better way than I could say them—I am by no means an expert in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) and I have known each other for many years. I know how difficult it was a number of years ago, with the loss of her father, and what a passionate advocate she has become for infection control and resolving some of the issues that have been mentioned. I cannot hope to match some of the discussion that we have had today.

As a relatively new Member of Parliament, I have been surprised in the 10 months since the election by the number of people who have come to my surgery to raise these sorts of issues. I am not new to politics—I was a councillor for eight years before becoming a Member of Parliament—and perhaps because previously I was looking at a different section of government and how it operated, but I was taken aback by the harrowing stories and challenges that many constituents have highlighted and have been willing to share with me.

There are a couple of issues in particular that have come through. The first is anaemia and the second is sepsis, which the hon. Member for Strangford has raised, and I have tabled some parliamentary questions on them. On anaemia, the best way to prevent infection is to prevent people from going into hospital in the first place. We need to reduce admissions, but it is a challenge to achieve that in our health service. One reason why many people are admitted is that they have undiagnosed illnesses, they experience problems and they automatically go to A&E. They present in a way that could be avoided.

The Anaemia Manifesto Steering Committee estimates that around 4 million people live with iron deficiency. It can be a secondary diagnosis, which means that people present with symptoms that they think are something else, but which in fact are anaemia. That costs the NHS up to £50 million every single year. Recognising and acknowledging that, and doing more work on anaemia, might help to address some of the admissions issues we have. Anaemia is the fourth most common cause of admissions for people over 75. It is, by common consent, an underdiagnosed and undertreated condition, and addressing that could be a route to reducing infections, by reducing the number of people in hospital in the first instance.

Sepsis has been discussed. I have heard about a number of cases about sepsis in my surgery: a lady with a young child whose life has been completely changed as a result of contracting sepsis, and who now has a completely different outlook and different requirements in how she lives her life, because of the limitations that sepsis has created; and a family who lost their mother to a sepsis infection that was not identified early enough. I could see the pain on their faces when they were talking about this hugely personal challenge that they had faced and which was created by sepsis.

There is recognition of the problem, and the Department of Health and Social Care is doing an incredible amount to raise sepsis awareness, and to move forward the acceptance that more needs to be done, but there remain challenges in diagnosis, in ensuring effective monitoring when people are in hospital, and in appropriate and adequate treatment. I am aware of the sepsis action plan and the public information campaigns on sepsis that are under way and which no doubt will continue. My parliamentary question was answered a number of months ago; it remains the case that there is a gap in understanding and focus in the health service on sepsis. I am sure that the Department of Health and Social Care and the Minister are seeking to close that gap as quickly as possible, but there is more work to be done, particularly with more than 100,000 cases a year and the deaths that the hon. Member for Strangford has outlined.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments earlier. To underline the number of deaths, Northern Ireland had a peak in 2008 of 191 deaths where C. diff was mentioned on the death certificate. That has been reduced to 67. It comes down to the hard core of problematic infection that is still there. That is where we are looking for some direction from the Minister.

[Lee Rowley]

I absolutely agree. I think everybody would recognise that there is more work to be done.

I will not take up any more time. I welcome the commitment from the Government on matters such as sepsis. There is acknowledgment across the House and from the Government, I hope, that there is more to be done in this area—there is public concern and a desire for public focus—and that process is already under way. I hope it can be restated and redoubled. We all recognise that there is further progress to be made so that we are not here in five or 10 years’ time, debating the same subjects, listening to the same stories in our surgeries.

Local Infrastructure (East Midlands)

Debate between Jim Shannon and Lee Rowley

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered investment in local infrastructure to secure new homes in the East Midlands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I welcome the opportunity to debate this important topic, particularly from a regional perspective, with Members from all parties who have joined us. I welcome the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), my constituency neighbour, and the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). I welcome everybody on the Government side, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) to my hon. Friends the Members for Charnwood (Edward Argar) and for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), as well as everybody else who is not from the east midlands but who has come to listen to this important debate none the less.

We all know that the United Kingdom faces a huge house building challenge over the coming years. With a growing population and strong economic growth over the last two decades, the number of houses built in this country has lagged behind the number needed to ensure that people have access to affordable homes to rent or buy to live in. The ability and aspiration to own a home, or the ability to rent a decent one, are a cornerstone of our democracy. It is usually the largest purchase that we ever make, and it roots us in our communities, gives us control over the place in which we live and allows us over time to accrue the capital that gives us the freedom to do as we wish in our lives.

Despite having cautioned against it in a previous debate, I will refer to polling to make my argument. Polling consistently shows that, given a free choice, 80% to 90% of people would ideally like to own a house if they could. Interestingly, that desire has only increased over time. According to Ipsos MORI’s long-term tracker, those born before the wars were slightly less likely to aspire to own a home than those in subsequent generations.

However, the aspiration to own a home does not always equate to the ability to do so. Home ownership rates have been falling for a number of years; according to the labour force survey, just under two thirds of people were homeowners at the end of 2016, compared with nearly 70% 10 years earlier. Although home ownership rates have been higher in the east midlands than in the country as a whole, they have also drifted down slightly over the past 10 years, from just over 70% to just under it.

Although that headline movement is challenging enough, the actual distribution of that ownership has also shifted significantly over the past 10 years between different groups of people in our country, particularly by age. One of the most concerning trends is the reduction in home ownership for people my age and below. The likelihood of owning a home for those aged between 18 and 34 has fallen from more than half in 2006 to just over a third.

Capitalism works only when someone has the ability to accrue capital. For too many people at the moment, particularly those in the younger generation, their aspiration to accrue capital is not matched by their ability to do so. We all know that we have a problem; it has been debated many times in this place. Although the roots of all problems are usually more complicated than they look, there is a general acceptance that the issue here can be diagnosed: demand remains, but supply has fallen behind. As the Secretary of State stated in his housing White Paper earlier this year:

“This country doesn’t have enough homes. That’s not a personal opinion or a political calculation. It’s a simple statement of fact.”

The population is growing—by some estimates, more than 210,000 households are created every single year—yet the number of new houses being built has not kept up with that demand in any meaningful way for a number of years. In fact, until last year it was more than a decade since that number was hit. To find a time when we consistently exceeded that volume of 210,000 homes, we have to go much further back. Last year we had a breakthrough, with 217,000 new homes built as part of the Government’s target of achieving 1 million new homes by 2020. I welcome that, but we know that we have a significant amount of work to do to rebuild and to realise the home ownership aspirations of so many of our constituents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. The specific topic does not relate to my constituency, but the general issue resonates with me. Does he agree that not only does investment provide affordable homes for families in desperate need, but the actual construction of the homes, which perhaps we do not focus on, provides jobs and an influx of spending power into the local economy? There are two wins: houses for people who need them, and jobs that boost the economy.

[Lee Rowley]

I completely agree. House building is important for home ownership and for helping people to rent and put down roots, but also for the economic growth and the jobs that come with house building in the first place.

There is a general consensus that increased house building is needed, both to house our growing population but also, I hope, to fulfil the home ownership aspirations I have talked about.