Energy-intensive Industries

Debate between Graham Stringer and Lee Rowley

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins]

I am happy to send the Minister a copy of the eight questions I asked him in my speech. He is yet to address a single one of them.

[Lee Rowley]

The challenge with this debate is that we all accept there is a problem, and we all accept that there is a wider context of global issues—some of which are beyond our control—but ultimately, the hon. Lady needs to propose as well as oppose. If she has a proposition, I would be very happy to hear it, as would the Government, but I did not hear a proposition in the 20 minutes that she spoke for.

“Do more” needs to be followed by another sentence that says precisely what to do, because when you talk to energy-intensive industries—I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady does not—and have detailed dialogue with them, you realise that there is a significant amount of nuance underlying this discussion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South has outlined, you have some energy-intensive industries that are very heavily based on gas. You have other energy-intensive industries that are very heavily based on electricity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) has indicated. Other businesses that are not energy-intensive industries are also reliant on some unusual ways of procuring and using energy, and if we do not recognise that nuance in any solutions that we propose, ultimately—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I have let it go so far, but I do not have views on these things when I am in the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is not the only Member who has transgressed that rule during the debate, but can he refer to hon. Members, not “you”?

[Lee Rowley]

My apologies for not using the correct nomenclature, Mr Stringer.

The point I am making is that there is a variety of nuances underlying this discussion. We have energy-intensive industries that are heavily dependent on one source of fuel, and energy-intensive industries that are heavily dependent on another. We have some industries that are very heavily hedged and some that are not. We have some differences when it comes to the significance of the change in energy costs. We have some industries that are within the compensation scheme, and some that are without it. Some are in other schemes, and some have already applied for schemes that are already open, including the industrial energy transformation fund, which is another £300 million of Government funding—of taxpayer subsidy—to help the sector.

The point I am making to the hon. Member for Bradford South is not that there is not a challenge—I have repeatedly indicated that there is. It is not that we do not value energy-intensive industries, nor that I do not want to listen, and I accept that she is acting completely in good faith in trying to record and highlight the challenges that energy-intensive industries in her constituency face. However, the question is exactly what we do about it, and that strategic dialogue is under way at the moment.

Balanced Budget Rule

Debate between Graham Stringer and Lee Rowley

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the balanced budget rule.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am extremely pleased to have secured this debate to consider an issue that has slipped down the agenda in recent years, namely that of fiscal responsibility and the actions the state can take in order to uphold and, in some cases, guarantee it.

I am delighted to see so many right hon. Members and hon. Members here today. It is packed to the rafters and standing room only, which demonstrates the level of interest in the subject. I hope that, by holding such debates in Westminster Hall, and by dragging so many hon. Members to them to volunteer contributions, we can slowly raise this important issue back up the agenda and draw attention to it.

The particular issue I want to discuss is the principle of the United Kingdom adopting a balanced budget rule as a way to improve its finances, and the underlying responsibility of Members in this place to ensure that the country pays its way in the future. The idea, which though simple is not universally liked, is that over an appointed period, within an agreed timeline, Governments should follow the novel concept of living within their means and not spend more than they can afford. Crucially, that commitment goes beyond words and there should be consequences if there is a failure to adhere to it.

To some, that is dramatic news; to others, such as myself, it just makes sense that Governments should not seek to balance the books on the back of the nation’s children and grandchildren. The principle of the never-never is, with appropriate structuring, just as apt for the Exchequer as it is for the average household in towns such as Dronfield, Eckington, Clay Cross and Killamarsh in my North East Derbyshire consistency.

It was James Madison, one of the US founding fathers, who said in 1790 that he went

“on the principle that a Public Debt is a Public curse.”

We would do well to take heed of such sentiments.

I have prepared a long speech, because I did not think that so many Members would be here. Before I begin, I will frame the discussion to ensure that the next few minutes can be constructive and useful. The debate could easily, quickly and seamlessly descend into the usual tit-for-tat and back-and-forth on the current state of our national finances, who got us to where we are and why we are there. I am sure that that may happen during the debate. I will say a few words about that in a moment, but I hope we will not dwell on it too much. The idea is to take a broader and longer-term look at where we are, and how we ensure that we leave our country safer, more secure and more resilient than we found it. That resilience should stretch to the nation’s finances as much as it does to its borders and national security.

I declare this debate, in so far as I am able, a Brexit-free zone. That is not because Brexit will not have repercussions or implications for the issue at hand, because it blatantly will, given that the Government’s deficit elimination target has been revised in recent years. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) will still have a speech to make after those comments. This debate is about a time beyond Brexit, if we can possibly imagine such a nirvana, and about the day when headlines talk about police, health and education again, rather than backstops, Juncker and tariffs. I have been in this place less than two years, and I would say that at least 90% of what we talk about is Brexit. It sucks the oxygen out of the room, and I say that as committed Brexiteer. It also looks likely to continue to do so for much of the next year, so I hope that for the next few minutes we can try to avoid it.

My proposition is simple: that the United Kingdom considers over the long term the adoption of the balanced budget rule, set in statute, which requires Government to spend only as much as they raise, over a set agreed period, and that there will be consequences if they fail to do that. That would not be an aim or an ambition, but a hard rule, which would be flexible only inasmuch as anything can be flexible when it is set down in law. To be provocative, if we were so minded we might even consider tying any attempt to change future legislation—presumably by a spendthrift Government eager to give out sweeties or goodies to buy votes—to a referendum of the people themselves, given that we have become so adept at referendums in recent years. That would certainly focus minds.

What is the point of legislating on this issue? First, we should all have a moral problem with excessive Government debt. The United Kingdom’s general Government gross debt in September 2018 was, according to the Office for National Statistics, about £1.8 trillion, which is equivalent to about 85% of our country’s GDP. Last year we borrowed, and therefore added to that figure, about £40 billion. In the last couple of decades, our debt as a proportion of GDP has risen from approximately 40% to more than 80%. Those may be just numbers, but they have real-life and real-world implications.

I acknowledge the challenges that the Government have had in trying to get the country’s deficit under control. My party remains resolutely of the view that the Administration prior to 2010 both mismanaged the country’s finances and failed to prepare for the inevitable recession, which could not be avoided given that mere mortals cannot abolish the cycle of boom and bust, and given the well-recited failure to mend the roof when the sun was shining. I support the Government’s deficit strategy and the work they continue to do to manage it down. It has proved a difficult issue to resolve, but we should acknowledge the important milestone that we hit this year, which is that debt as a proportion of GDP is falling for the first time in many years.

Even with the acknowledgement of the good work that has been and continues to be done, the reality is that we are going to run a deficit for a good number of years to come. Even when we eliminate that deficit, which I hope will be as soon as possible, we are merely returning to a place that stops us piling on any more problems for our children and grandchildren, without really having a way to cut down the problem that has already been created in absolute terms. What is the long-term strategy for cutting that debt pile in absolute rather than relative terms? How do we avoid the current position becoming the baseline and the place we start from when the next recession comes? That place would, by default, reduce our firepower to deal with those hard times.

It is worth dwelling on the moral case for not running a deficit and for keeping debt low. The debt that we run up, for whatever good or bad reason, needs to be paid back, and if we cannot pay it back, we need to service it or pay for it. That limits the headroom of future generations to make decisions about what they spend their taxes on, because some of their taxes will go on servicing the debt. It mandates that spending that benefits one generation will be dealt with by another, which is an intergenerational unfairness that we should reflect on much more deeply than we do today, as ever-eager politicians dream up another opportunity to spend.

Reducing our firepower or fiscal space in the event of a recession is the worst kind of lack of planning, and one that will hamstring our ability to pull ourselves out of those recessions, when they inevitably come. As Ryan Bourne of the Cato Institute pointed out in his excellent recent paper on the subject, at least some of the literature that has reviewed the issue highlights that when Government debt gets too high for too long, it tends to reduce growth rates overall, meaning less economic activity, less growth and less prosperity in the long run. [Interruption.]

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. We will recommence in 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Sorry about that. I had been told there was definitely a second vote, which there clearly was not. I call Mr Lee Rowley.

[Lee Rowley]

Before we went to vote I was talking about the moral case for low debt and ensuring that the servicing of that debt was as minimal as possible, to retain and support our ability to ensure economic activity in the future. It was not for nothing that Herbert Hoover intoned sarcastically:

“Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt.”

In this context, perhaps we can bestow a few less blessings on them in the future.

Putting aside the morality of debt, the key issue, which should drive all politicians regarding the accretion of Government debt, is the year-on-year cost of servicing and holding it, as mentioned earlier. The proponents of unfunded spending may highlight how the markets are not that concerned with relatively high borrowing so long as it can be funded. That may be the case. Let us hope, for all of our sakes, that we do not enter a period of high interest rates in the coming decades when national debt is to be rolled over.

The opportunity cost of that funding, on an ongoing basis, is much less understood in this place than in public discourse. It comprises a tax, year on year, on today’s generation for yesterday’s spending. Unlike the total debt to GDP ratio, which has oscillated wildly in the last century due to wartime spending, the cost of servicing the UK’s debt has been on an upward trajectory for the last century. Adjusted for inflation, the cost of servicing that debt has risen from an average of £12 billion per annum between 1900 and 1960 to nearly £30 billion at the turn of the 21st century. Since 2009, that average has hit £43 billion every year. In total, since 1900 the UK has spent something like £2.5 trillion just on servicing its debt. About half of that has been spent since I was born—I still like to think of myself as being relatively young.

The bad news is not likely to stop there. With the continuing running of deficits until well into the 2020s, the annual cost of servicing that debt is projected by the Office for Budget Responsibility to hit more than £50 billion by the start of the next decade. In this Parliament alone, debt servicing costs are projected to be about a quarter of a trillion pounds over the five years. The sums are huge and growing. They represent a significant opportunity cost to the UK as a whole.