Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart]

I can give my hon. Friend and his constituents that assurance.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

A few months ago, CF Fertilisers in Billingham ceased ammonia production there because of the high gas price. Now Mitsubishi, just a few hundred yards along the road, is consulting on the closure of one of its plants, with the loss of hundreds of direct and contractor jobs, for the same reason. Is the Minister aware of that latest blow to Teesside, and what is he doing to help firms such as Mitsubishi?

[Grant Shapps]

I was up in Teesside the week before last, and I have been keeping in close contact with what is happening there. The good news is that there are new jobs coming about in new industries, including new industries supplying electric battery manufacturing, which are available because this country is outside the European Union and able to produce new rules that will allow things such as green lithium to thrive here and provide up to 8% of Europe’s entire needs. New jobs are coming to Teesside.

Terminal Illness (Support and Rights) Bill

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on achieving a Second Reading for his Bill? Perhaps we could persuade him to organise a masterclass on how to achieve Government support for proposed legislation.

I am grateful to the Public Bill Office and, in particular, to Anne-Marie Griffiths, for their tremendous support in preparing this Bill and to the Minister who has taken the time to talk to me about what I am proposing today.

As I begin, I wish to thank the teams at both Marie Curie and the Trades Union Congress for all the vital work that they do in supporting those living with terminal illnesses. I also pay tribute to the many inspiring campaigners who work with these organisations, particularly Jacci Woodcock MBE who founded the TUC’s Dying to Work campaign, which I will talk about when I get to clause 3. I would also like to recognise the work of Mark and Cheryl whom I had the privilege of meeting a couple of months ago when I hosted Marie Curie’s Dying in Poverty parliamentary event. These campaigners and their families have been through one of the most difficult experiences that we can imagine—a terminal diagnosis—and yet they continue to use their voices to advocate to improve support for all people with terminal illnesses. Their work should inspire and humble us all—it certainly does me.

The first time I promoted a private Member’s Bill, to ban smoking in cars with children present, I am proud to say that the Government eventually implemented the measures, albeit three and a half years later. I am hoping they will make quicker progress this time. As the cost of living crisis deepens, people living with terminal illnesses will be disproportionately impacted. Indeed, they are already facing increasing financial precariousness. Between April and September of this year, almost one in five calls to Marie Curie’s support line were from people affected by terminal illness who were concerned about their finances—an increase of 38% on the same period last year. Therefore, I hope the Government take up the measures in my Bill quickly, and provide those living with terminal illnesses with much-needed additional financial support, without costing the Exchequer a penny.

Nobody should die in poverty, but, tragically, many of our constituents who should be able to spend the last stage of their lives enjoying the company of the people they love, are instead worrying about their finances, struggling to pay bills and incurring debts that will be passed on to their loved ones when they are gone. In 2021, Marie Curie commissioned Loughborough University to examine the number of people who die in poverty in the UK each year. The findings of the research are stark and horrifying: 90,000 people die in poverty every year in the UK, one in four people who die in working age are in poverty in their last year of life, and two in three working-age parents who die experience poverty in the last five years of life.

Being diagnosed with a terminal illness can lead to a number of additional costs, including travel to appointments, medication costs and higher energy bills, which I will come on to a little later. These costs all land on the doorstep just as people’s income is reduced, as they may be forced to stop work or at least reduce their working hours. As Marie Curie noted in its briefing ahead of the autumn statement:

“For many, this ‘double squeeze’ on household finances directly leads to a fall below the poverty line. Working age people living with a terminal illness are a third more likely to be in poverty than other working age people.

For those who die in working age the risks are even higher. Without the fixed income provided by the State Pension and other lifetime savings to rely on, people who die in working age are more than twice as likely to experience poverty at the end of life as those who die in pension age.

Working age families with children are particularly vulnerable to falling into poverty when hit by terminal illness. Childcare costs cannot be avoided and the impact of one or both parents leaving the workforce means that these families are more likely than any other group to fall below the poverty line when one parent is terminally ill.”

These statistics underline the urgent need for additional financial support for those living with a terminal illness, particularly those who are of working age.

There is a range of possible practical and impactful interventions that Marie Curie has worked up, such as placing elements of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline NG6, “Excess winter deaths and illness and the health risks associated with cold homes”, on a statutory footing and including people with terminal illnesses on the priority services register. That obliges providers to prioritise vulnerable customers for additional support, such as advance notice of planned power cuts or priority support in emergencies. It has also been energetically campaigning to give all dying people access to their state pension, no matter their age; to protect dying people from soaring energy bills, including by extending eligibility for the winter fuel payment; and to support dying parents with childcare costs. I urge the Minister to consider Marie Curie’s proposals that are wider than we are discussing today, and to meet it to discuss the full range of policies it has developed. For my part, the scope of this Bill is much narrower, so I hope she will be able to commit to advancing these limited but important proposals.

If implemented, my Bill would require utility companies to provide certain financial supports to customers with a terminal illness, and it would strengthen the employment rights of people with a terminal illness. Clauses 1 and 2 will enable people who are terminally ill to access financial support from their energy provider via the warm home discount and the energy company obligation. The measures will amend the eligibility criteria for these schemes in existing legislation, to give energy providers an obligation to provide such forms of support to customers who are thought to be in their last year of life.

In a 2021 report, “No place like home?”, the all-party parliamentary group for terminal illness concluded that the added costs of heating homes could drive many terminally ill people and their families into poverty and have a negative impact on their physical and mental health and wellbeing. That finding was confirmed by Marie Curie in the 2022 report “Dying in poverty”, which said that the energy bills of terminally ill people could increase significantly after their diagnosis. For example, some terminally ill people may need to heat their homes for longer than before, or to a higher temperature, as a result of their condition, while others will need to power medical equipment in the home, such as ventilators, respirators or monitors. Those higher energy needs can push households affected by terminal illness into fuel poverty.

The UK’s energy providers are required to make certain forms of support available to customers who may struggle to afford the cost of their bills, or who may be vulnerable and need support. They include the warm home discount—a £140 discount on electricity and gas bills over the winter period—and the energy company obligation, which obliges providers to deliver energy efficiency measures to homes in order to help households cut their heating bills. In some cases, eligibility for these schemes is set nationally: for example, low-income pensioners are automatically eligible for the warm home discount under the “core group” system, while customers in receipt of certain benefits are automatically eligible for support under the energy company obligation’s help to heat group. In other cases, energy providers set their own eligibility criteria—such as those for the warm home discount wider group—which are often based on receipt of certain means-tested benefits or other criteria.

Terminally ill people, especially those of working age, are not automatically eligible for support via these schemes despite their vulnerability to fuel poverty. They may be eligible to apply for support based on other criteria—for example, disability or receipt of means-tested benefits—but they will not necessarily be successful. Both the warm home discount and the energy company obligation require energy companies to make a limited pot of money available to support customers, and a provider’s criteria do not necessarily prioritise those who are terminally ill for support.

Legislation places obligations on UK energy providers to make support available to customers via the warm home discount and energy company obligation on the basis of eligibility criteria set out in legislation. Regulation 8(5)(c) of the Warm Home Discount (England and Wales) Regulations 2022 sets out the eligibility criteria for the core group, who are automatically eligible for the payment. At present, people are considered eligible for support under the core group system if they are in receipt of the “guarantee credit” element of pension credit. Article 2 of the Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) Order 2022 sets out the eligibility criteria under the energy company obligation for the help to heat group, who are eligible for interventions to improve the energy efficiency of their homes to help reduce their bills. At present, people are considered eligible for support under the help to heat group if they are in receipt of certain benefits outlined in schedule 1 to the order.

My Bill amends each of those items of legislation to introduce a new eligibility criterion based on the Social Security (Special Rules for End of Life) Act 2022, extending automatic eligibility for the warm home discount and energy company obligation to people who are thought to be in the last year of their lives. The Government have already demonstrated some commitment to improving financial support for those with terminal illnesses by amending the legal definition of terminal illness in benefits law to enable anyone who is thought to be in the last year of life to claim certain benefits on a fast-track basis. I welcome that, but I also hope that the Government can take this further step and provide necessary additional support for some of those who will need heating the most this winter as their energy bills climb.

The third and final clause of my Bill aims to put the demands of the TUC’s Dying to Work campaign on a statutory footing, ensuring that terminal illness is recognised as a protected characteristic, so that an employee with a terminal illness would enjoy a protected period during which they could not be dismissed as a result of their condition. This protection will provide those who have received a terminal diagnosis and are still of working age with the choice of how to spend their final months, and the peace of mind of knowing their job is protected and the future financial security of their family is supported. Losing one’s job following a terminal diagnosis can lead to reduced income, further exacerbating the issues with financial security that I have discussed. Sometimes, it leads to a deeply stressful and upsetting HR procedure, which should not have to be a concern for those in the final stages of their life. If a worker with a terminal illness loses their job, they may also lose any death-in-service payments that they have earned through a lifetime of work but which are payable only to those who die while still in employment.

Clause 3 provides that employers must take into account an employee’s terminal illness when deciding whether it is a reasonable adjustment to retain in employment those who have terminal illnesses, rather than dismiss them in accordance with a sickness absence policy. This will provide people with a terminal illness who are still of working age and who wish to continue working with additional security at the end of their life, and remove some of the stress and fear that they face. Although in some cases the individual may wish to stop working and spend their remaining time outside of work, some workers decide to continue working as long as they can, either because they need the financial security or because they find that their work can be a helpful distraction from their illness. Those who decide to stay in work should not be having to stress about dismissal or salary reductions after any periods of sickness associated with their illness. The clause ensures that whatever choice a person makes, they can expect the appropriate help and support from their employer, because when a person receives a terminal diagnosis, their job should not be on their list of worries.

Thanks to the efforts of the TUC, over half a million workers in the UK are already covered by the Dying to Work charter. I hope that today the Government can commit to extending that to all workers. I desperately want these proposals to succeed, and would be more than happy to work with the Minister to amend the Bill if necessary ahead of implementation; I know that Marie Curie and the TUC would be pleased to meet officials in order to help in any way they can, too. I reiterate that these changes will not cost the Exchequer a penny, and the cost to energy companies is also very limited, especially when compared with their huge profits. The change to the warm home discount in clause 1 will not necessarily require additional funds, as all it does is widen the criteria of the core group who automatically receive it to include terminally ill people.

The cost per person of the energy company obligation will depend heavily on what steps are needed to make that person’s home more energy efficient: for example, they may need a new boiler, insulation or a smart meter, among other things. However, again, I am sure the Minister can recognise that those costs would be extremely modest. While these clauses will not be able to ensure that no one dies in poverty—which is what this House should be striving for—I believe they could have a significant impact on the lives of terminally ill people, particularly those of working age, when they are at their most vulnerable. I hope the Minister will support the Bill’s Second Reading today, and work with me in Committee to make it law.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on behalf of the hospice sector, and Mountbatten hospice in particular. The hospice sector is key through its provision of not only care, but support to citizens at the most vulnerable time in their life. I join him in paying tribute to hospices, and I will come on to talk about some of the ways they contribute. Macmillan Cancer Care has done some interesting work on energy in particular.

Customers on prepayment meters may receive a top-up voucher, and all payment types benefit as long as they have an account with a participating energy supplier. For eligible households where there is no data or we are unable to match, they receive a Government letter by mid-January, asking them to call a helpline and verify their eligibility. We are doing everything we can to try to reach out. That helpline opened on 14 November and has already started processing customers.

The warm home discount provides further help beyond that £150 rebate. Under the industry initiatives element of the scheme, worth more than £40 million this year, several hundred thousand households receive help such as debt write-off, energy efficiency measures, financial assistance and benefit entitlement checks. All households helped under that element of the warm home discount also receive energy saving advice. Charities and businesses offering those services can provide genuinely life-changing packages, and we encourage everyone to pursue them.

Low-income and vulnerable households, including those with a terminal illness, may be able to benefit under industry initiatives even if they are not eligible for the £150 rebate. Indeed, under those industry initiatives energy suppliers have worked with charities, including Macmillan Cancer Support, to provide particular help to people diagnosed with cancer.

On energy efficiency, which was the second point raised by the hon. Member for Stockton North, while the Government, Ofgem and energy suppliers offer direct help with energy bills, we know that the best long-term solution is to improve the efficiency of people’s homes. That is why yesterday the Government announced a major new commitment to drive improvements in energy efficiency to bring down bills for households, businesses and the public sector with a clear ambition to reduce the UK’s total energy consumption from buildings and industry by at least 15% by 2030 against 2021 levels.

To achieve that, a new energy efficiency taskforce will be charged with accelerating the delivery of energy efficiency across the economy, and new Government funding worth £6 billion will be made available from 2025 to 2028. That is in addition to the £6.6 billion committed to over this Parliament, of which just over half has already been allocated to significantly improve the least energy-efficient homes through our social housing decarbonation fund, the home upgrade grant and the local authority delivery scheme. I hope that he can see that we are trying again to focus that money on that most vulnerable cohort whom he has spoken for. Homes receiving energy efficiency measures under those schemes will benefit from average bill savings of between £300 and £700 a year based on an average energy bill of £2,500.

I turn to the energy company obligation, which is a specific part of the hon. Member’s Bill. ECO, as it is known, is a regulation on larger energy suppliers to deliver energy bill savings through the installation of energy efficiency measures. Since the scheme started in 2013, about 3.5 million energy efficiency measures have been installed in about 2.4 million homes across Great Britain. Therefore, just under 10% of British households have lower energy bills as a direct result of ECO. This year, the Government extended the scheme until March 2026 and increased the spending envelope from about £640 million to £1 billion a year. That is focused on low-income and vulnerable households living in the least energy-efficient homes.

Households can benefit either through means-tested benefits or if they are social housing tenants or identified as low-income and vulnerable by the local authority or energy supplier. That last element is known as ECO Flex. Energy suppliers can meet up to half their overall obligation through ECO Flex, which is focused on private tenure housing. Under the current iteration, we have introduced a route intended specifically to help households experiencing severe health issues—both mental health and physical disability—including terminal illness-related disabilities. Households who receive energy-efficiency measures under ECO will typically save about £600 a year. There are organisations helping low-income households who offer help under ECO Flex and warm home discount, and the Government recently announced a further expansion of that support with a supplementary ECO Plus scheme, which is worth a total of £1 billion from 2023 to March 2026 and will allow a broader set of households to benefit. We plan to publish a consultation on the detailed proposals later this month.

I turn finally to employment rights, which is the final substantive clause of the Bill. Let me take the opportunity at the Dispatch Box, as a Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to make it clear that the Government strongly expect and encourage all employers to treat people in such a situation with the care, sensitivity and compassion that we would all expect people we know to be treated with. Being a good employer and a good business means exactly that. People suffering from a terminal illness should not have to face any additional burdens as a result of their employment—not least fearing for their job—at a time when they are dealing with the very hardest illnesses and having to make plans for the end of their life.

The Government fully support the objective of enabling employees with life-threatening conditions to continue working for as long as possible. One of the things that many people feel most strongly about on diagnosis is wanting to be able to carry on living their life for as long as they possibly can, and we owe it to them to make that possible. The hon. Member has been a great champion of that. The Equality Act 2010 provides that workers who are disabled due to chronic diseases or conditions are fully protected from any discriminatory treatment by their employers. In the overwhelming majority of cases, someone with a terminal illness will meet the definition for being disabled under the Act. I say, “the overwhelming majority”, but one thing that we might want to look at offline, as it were, is trying to ensure that that is everybody. Any kind of cancer, for example, is automatically regarded as a disability.

Under employment law, a qualifying employee who is unfairly dismissed or forced to resign from a job because of a terminal illness may bring a claim of unfair dismissal against their employer. However—before the hon. Member for Stockton North asks me, as I suspect he will—I would be the first to accept that if one is in the late stages of a terminal disease, bringing a case to the employment tribunal is not for the faint-hearted. It is not, in many cases, a reasonable remedy, and given that, we need to think about how we can ensure that people are not being asked to rely on a remedy that, in practice, they will struggle to call on. Depending on the nature of the illness and its impact on them, they may also be able to bring a claim of disability discrimination under the Equality Act, but again, the same condition applies.

The Equality Act goes further in relation to those whose illness renders them disabled: it places a clear statutory duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities, quite rightly, so that they can access or remain in work. Reasonable adjustments can include making changes to the workplace, changing someone’s working arrangements, finding a different way to do something or providing reasonable equipment, services or support. Crucially, reasonable adjustments are specific to an individual employee, and making a reasonable adjustment is not a one-off requirement; it requires review, adaptation and ongoing support as people’s needs change and develop. Equally, it is not a limitless requirement; it has to be reasonable in all circumstances, taking a variety of factors into consideration.

More generally, where an adjustment is not directly required because of a disability, for many people an additional bit of flexibility in the workplace is crucial to allowing them to deliver their job. Employees with 26 weeks’ service already benefit from the right to request flexible working, which allows them to ask for a change in their hours or location of work. Most employers rightly and honourably go further than their minimum statutory duties. It is the bad employers that we need to get on top of. I was pleased that the Government were able to support the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill, which deals with that issue, on Second Reading on 28 October. If that Bill successfully gets through Parliament, it will update the existing right to request flexible working to encourage more effective dialogue between employers and employees, allow more statutory requests in a year and require that they are administered more speedily. The Government believe that that will benefit employees generally but also those who are working with a life-threatening condition. We look forward to working with the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) to take that Bill forward.

The Government are absolutely committed to improving the lives of people with disabilities, terminal illnesses and related conditions. We believe it is imperative that all employers fulfil their obligations to their employees. There is a lot of guidance and support available to them, and the House has heard the considerable package of support the Government have put in place, including through the ACAS website, which I encourage anyone listening to or watching the debate to look at. We encourage all employers to make use of those resources and ensure that employees with terminal illnesses are given the help and support they need to stay in work if that is what they wish to do, which many do.

Having gone through the Bill carefully with officials in the Department, we now need to go through it with officials in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health and Social Care. While I am aware that the lead on this is the Small Business Minister, in my Department, I suggest to the hon. Member for Stockton North that we convene a group of key Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the DWP and the DHSC, to look at the specific groups who are not able to receive their entitlements—that is the hon. Gentleman’s point: many people have entitlements but are not getting them—and to ensure that good employers who are trying to do the right thing can provide a mixture of private employer support and universal credit support.

Everyone here today has heard the extensive support the Government are providing, but it is not just a question of announcing lots of pots of money. For the people who are living in this very difficult situation, we must ensure that we make it easy for them to apply for and secure that help. I would happily undertake to request that Ministers in those two Departments and the Small Business Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) sit down to look in particular at how we can ensure that eligible people get what they are eligible for and how we can promote best practice and make sure that these people who have the tragedy of a terminal illness are able to fulfil their lives properly in the workplace.

[Alex Cunningham]

I just place on record my thanks to the Minister for the constructive way in which he is responding to my speech and my Bill. I hope we will be able to work on it sometime in the future.

[George Freeman]

I am grateful, and in return I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I look forward to our being able to make some progress, whether or not in the form of this Bill. I think he understands that we need to try to focus on solving the problem, and he probably does not want to wait three years to get his Bill on to the statute book—he would rather get something done more quickly.

In conclusion, I will sign off where I started, and pay tribute to the work of the Marie Curie team and all the hospices that Members have mentioned around the country, which do so much for this most vulnerable group. I hope that Members across the House can hear how seriously the Government take this matter. We are putting significant funding out there. The real challenge is to make sure that the people on the frontline who are eligible and dealing with the very hardest situation in life can get the help they need.

On the employment side of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill in particular, everyone can see that there is a problem when people do not have the most enlightened employers. Asking those people to take recourse through the courts when they are in the situation they are in is hard, and we need to sit down and see whether there is something we can do to ensure that happens less and less, and that people suffering from disabilities and terminal illnesses can live and work as they want, with dignity right through to the end of their working lives. I think all of us in the House would support that.

Britain’s Industrial Future

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Grahame Morris]

rose—

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

rose—

[George Freeman]

Let me finish this point.

Thirdly, the tightening of the global energy markets has hit many energy-intensive industries hard. We have announced £25 billion of support for the next six months. That is far from the doom and gloom of the motion, which, for anyone who reads it, paints a picture of this Government having no strategy or policy for industry, which is complete rubbish.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman]

Indeed, fantastic things are happening at NETPark. One would think that the Labour party, which dominated County Durham politics for decades and seemed to indulge in the poverty up there, would celebrate the phenomenal turnaround in the north-east. It is one of our leading manufacturing regions. NETPark is home to Kromek and Newcastle is home to QuantuMDX. That is a great story of British manufacturing driving an advanced economy in the areas that were blighted by painful deindustrialisation. I am proud that the Conservative party is in the vanguard of that.

[Alex Cunningham]

There is no doubt that we have new manufacturing to celebrate in the north-east, but Teesside’s steel industry is a shadow of its former self. It has a few hundred jobs, instead of the many thousands that existed a few years ago, before the Government abandoned us. Does the Minister agree that we should invest in Teesside steel now and use its product for the new industry jobs that we are promised?

[George Freeman]

That brings me to steel, and the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There has been real pressure on the steel industry in the past 15 to 20 years. Global economic conditions are hugely challenging for all domestic steel sectors. There has been massive overcapacity, unfair overseas subsidies and steel dumping. The real issue is that global steel production has more than doubled since 1995 and China is by far the biggest contributor to that growth. In 1995, China accounted for 13% of the world’s steel production. By 2019, that had risen to 53%. There has been a phenomenal change in the global steel market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on chemicals and on carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Nowhere needs to see our industrial future secured more than Teesside. Unemployment there remains way above the national average, and no wonder. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said, the Tory Government turned their back on the Teesside steel industry at the former SSI site and 3,000 people lost their jobs. Despite Tory promises, Cleveland Bridge & Engineering, which built bridges across the world, including the Sydney harbour bridge, was allowed to go under after a history stretching back to 1877, with hundreds of highly skilled workers losing their jobs.

When the Sirius mine project, largely owned by local people, many of whom sank their life savings into it, ran into cash-flow problems, the Tees Mayor promised support, only to be slapped down by his own Government, who paved the way for a multinational company to take over. Then there is the fishing industry. That too has been decimated as fish and other sea life have died off. The real cause of that has yet to be determined, but today I welcome the fact that the Government have set up an independent group of experts on that.

It is not all doom and gloom. The Tees could be home to the first carbon capture, use and storage project to get under way, but we now need action from the Government on the business case and contracting arrangements to make that happen. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that it will go ahead and that a second wave of projects will also be forthcoming. Then there is the potential of the controversial freeport and Teesworks sites, which we are told will be home to thousands of green industry jobs. I only hope that the Tees Mayor will deliver this time. He has promised mouth-watering numbers of jobs over his five years as Mayor, but there has been no more than a trickle so far.

I do, however, worry about who will benefit from any development there. As we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, 90% of the shares in the Teesworks site were handed to two private companies, and I agree that it is time for a full inquiry into how that process worked and when they acquired those hugely valuable assets. As for the freeport, I desperately want it to succeed, but not just for the entrepreneurs—it must also succeed for the people of the Tees Valley. I am worried about the potential for the terms and conditions of people working there to be dumbed down. We want high-value jobs, but not where highly skilled people are exploited for other people’s profit.

I now turn to energy-intensive industries, which are so important to Teesside. Already we have seen CF Fertilisers stop manufacturing ammonia, choosing instead to import it, and I know that another company nearby could be facing closure with the loss of 600 chemical jobs if things do not change for the better. Chemicals are critical not only to the local economy; they also contribute to the UK economy as a whole. We rely on them day after day, from the water we drink, the food we eat and the medicine we use to the mobile phones in our pockets and the electric vehicles on the roads. It is estimated that around 95% of all manufactured goods rely on some form of industrial chemical process. According to the Chemical Industries Association, 4,535 chemical businesses provide over 500,000 direct and indirect jobs, including factories and laboratories operated by a highly trained and skilled workforce.

That sector is one of the UK’s biggest manufacturing industries, with £33 billion of annual exports contributing £31 billion a year to the UK economy, but it is also under the cosh. These numbers are hard-won, and we as a country must do everything possible to secure and grow them further. There is no modern successful economy in the world without a chemical industry, and no other industry is so fundamental to economic, social and environmental progress, but the ramifications of high energy prices are affecting businesses across the board. This is why I have raised the contribution of the chemicals industry, in the hope that the Government will be reminded what is at stake should they not put together an effective industrial strategy. Labour recognises that the job of Government is to offer a reliable and consistent policy framework that businesses can trust and invest alongside, over the longer term. That is what they really want.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I must pass on the apologies of the Secretary of State for not being able to attend the debate, due to a Cobra meeting.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Listening to the contributions, I cannot help but feel that reports of the death of British industry have been greatly exaggerated—that is probably not what the speakers meant, but that is definitely how it sounded.

From the aftermath of the global financial crisis to the coronavirus pandemic and, more recently, damaging disruption to worldwide supply chains, there is no doubt that global economic turmoil in the past 12 years has presented significant challenges for manufacturing in the UK. Nevertheless, to the shadow Minister’s point on slow growth, it is good to note that the UK has grown at about the same pace as the United States since 2010, and faster than Germany since 2016. It is important to have the facts. In the same period, we have come to understand the scale of the climate change challenge and the transformation that will be required in every element of our economy.

I will first touch on some of the contributions from both sides of the House. It is fair to say that there were some valuable contributions on both sides, although I probably have more in common with the comments from the Conservative side of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) talked about making sure that we have a fair and level playing field in competition with overseas markets. Our “Steel Lady”, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), rightly said that steel’s future was part of the solution for net zero, rather than part of the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) talked about the 9,000 high-skilled, well-paid jobs created by this Conservative Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) talked about the green hydrogen opportunities on Teesside. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) talked about the £407 billion committed by this Government to saving jobs and businesses during the pandemic. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) talked about place-based solutions to growth, which I entirely agree with.

My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson) talked about the opportunities in the space and satellite sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) talked about investing in British talent, in students and workers, which I also agree with.

[Alex Cunningham]

This is my second opportunity to welcome the Minister to his position, this time at the Dispatch Box. He heard me talk about carbon capture and storage. George Osborne wheeched away £1 billion overnight from the project several years ago. Can the Minister guarantee that the same is not going to happen to the carbon capture industry this time?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman made some good points about the opportunities on Teesside. Carbon capture and storage and Net Zero Teesside represent a huge opportunity and something that is on the Government agenda. We are also looking into the life sciences sector in Teesside and the first large-scale lithium refinery in the country, with 1,000 jobs in construction—all these things are happening on Teesside. I recognise his point on the steel sector, but all this carbon capture and storage may well form part of the future for Teesside.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) made some interesting points about buying British. I think everyone in this House would agree on the need to buy British, but does he accept that, that as the trade and co-operation agreement and others open up EU markets to UK companies, we cannot on that basis expect to close our markets to EU countries, or to countries from around the world? We believe in international trade—[Interruption.] Well, I also believe in buying British. I share his enthusiasm for the Government’s £206 million investment in a UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions—the biggest Government investment ever in that sector.

Manufacturing has been at the heart of our economy for centuries—the shipbuilding, automotive and steel industries perhaps more than any others. In 2021, manufacturing contributed more than £205 billion gross value added to the UK economy, which is the fourth highest figure in Europe. Manufacturing, which is responsible for almost half of UK exports, has a vital role to play in driving innovation, job creation and productivity growth beyond the bounds of the M25. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) will be pleased to note that 95% of manufacturing jobs are outside London.

Carer's Leave Bill

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 9th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank everyone who is here today—those here voluntarily and those I spoke to very nicely. I welcome the Minister to his place. He is the fourth Minister I have worked with on this Bill, and I am grateful for his support and for that of his predecessors, including the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell). I also thank the officials in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for their excellent work and support over recent months. It is lovely to see them here today.

It is a privilege to have the opportunity to carry this Bill through scrutiny in Committee and, I hope, on to its final stages in the Commons. It is wonderful to see so much good work and cross-party co-operation to ensure that this important piece of legislation progresses. I am delighted we are here today to take a step closer to introducing a much-needed new leave entitlement for unpaid carers. We all know the many challenges facing unpaid carers, of which juggling work is just one.

The Carers UK published its “State of Caring 2022” report yesterday, and I will take this opportunity—I take every opportunity—to thank it again for its support. I see one of its representatives in the Gallery. As the most up-to-date evidence that we have about unpaid carers, I will refer to it a few times this morning. I am sure other members of the Committee who have a particular interest will have also seen it, and I encourage those who have not to do so as we all have unpaid carers in our constituencies. It is an impressive piece of work, but it is hard reading because it lays out all the ways in which unpaid carers are still, arguably, being failed.

According to the report, we can currently estimate that one in five adults in the United Kingdom are providing care. That is a huge number. It is hard to estimate how many of those are also in employment—a conservative estimate is 2.3 million. We will need to wait for the publication of the England and Wales census later this year—Scotland’s is next year—to get more accurate estimates, but we know that the numbers are high and ever increasing.

Tempting as it might be, I will not use this morning to provide a summary of the report and all its many recommendations. The Minister knows that I am keen on other recommendations being implemented, especially those that relate to carer’s allowance, but I know we all have places to be, so I will return to the matter in front of us: the Carer’s Leave Bill.

The Bill would put on the statute book for the first time employment rights specifically designed to help unpaid carers with one week of unpaid leave per year for those in full-time employment. That is desperately needed, with 75% of respondents in the Carers UK research worrying about juggling work and care. A significant number of others have either already gone part time or given up work entirely. That was certainly my experience in North East Fife. When I tried to find constituents who would directly benefit from the Bill, a number of people got in touch with me to say that they had given up employment as a result of their caring responsibilities.

We know that employment is a vital lifeline for many people. It is not just about income, although that is clearly a key issue. The majority of carers state that they are also worried about managing their monthly costs, with almost all making spending reductions, including a quarter cutting back on heating and eating. I want to pause here and reiterate that one in four—an estimated 2.5 million unpaid carers who selflessly help others—are having to cut back on their essentials. For most, that means nearing, if not already experiencing, destitution.

In addition to the financial element, this is also about health and wellbeing. On average, carers rate their life satisfaction and happiness distinctly lower than the general population: 4.7 compared with 7.4 and 4.8 compared with 7.4 on a scale of one to 10. Anxiety, stress, loneliness and burnout are common factors. The Bill alone will of course not resolve those issues, but I would argue that a carer being able to use their annual leave for their own rest, being able to take leave from work without feeling at a disadvantage, enjoying their workplace as a regular respite from care rather than work, and having an employer increasingly more likely to recognise and support them in all their roles can only help. I am sure that others present agree.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on getting a Bill to this stage, and welcome the Government’s support for it. I, too, pay tribute to the army of carers out there. I am part of the all-party parliamentary group on carers, and carers tell me that the ideal situation would be to get paid leave for carers in the longer term. The Bill is a good step forward, but will she join me and carers organisations in asking the Government to look seriously at that, and to bring back paid leave for carers?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. My party’s policy is to have paid leave, but the Bill is an important step, putting statutory rights to request leave on the statute book in for the first time. I hope that it is an initial step in doing much more to support carers in all their guises.

Before looking at the text of the Bill, I will briefly mention that it also benefits employers. As I outlined on Second Reading, I have had the pleasure of meeting several businesses that already have carer-friendly employment practices. The evidence that they shared made it clear that having such practices not only is the right thing to do but produces financial benefits through staff motivation and lower turnover. It is a win-win.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and welcome my fellow northern MP to his new role on the Front Bench. I welcome the Government’s support for the Bill. The hon. Gentleman heard my remarks about paid carer’s leave, but may I alert him to another cost-neutral Bill—my private Member’s Bill, which will have its Second Reading next Friday and which would provide protection and rights for terminally ill people?

[The Chair]

You do not need to answer that intervention, Mr Hollinrake.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

As we have heard, the Bill threatens environmental, health and industrial protections by casting an enormous shadow of uncertainty. During an economic crisis caused by the current period of Tory turmoil, the Government claim that they seek to promote growth, but the Bill would cause major disruption for businesses and, as the Chair of the Justice Committee said, put even more pressure on an overstretched legal system in settling uncertainties in the law.

There is also a huge cost to people and business, and I will concentrate on the tremendous pressure on the chemical industry, such as the one on Teesside, in complying with Government demands for UK regulations as perfectly workable EU ones are ditched. I am told that implementing the British REACH regulations, which has been demanded by the Government, will not now cost the industry £1 billion because, according to the Chemical Industries Association, the final bill is expected to be several times greater. Given that there is no clarification from Ministers about which laws and regulations they intend to retain, amend, or allow to expire, industries are left in a state of precariousness. Will EU regulations be retained, will they be amended, or will they just be ditched?

An incoming black hole left from the ditching of EU-derived legislation is increasing anxieties for businesses, including those in the chemicals industry. Many Members will know of the REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulations, which regulate the majority of chemical substances that are manufactured in, or imported to, the country. They are vital for improving the protection of human health and the environment from hazardous chemicals, and for facilitating trade in chemicals across borders. Businesses that make chemical products and solutions are integral to some 96% of all manufactured goods and key ingredients, including for food and life-saving medicines, as well as material for mobile phones and electric vehicle batteries. The industry is calling for an alignment with EU REACH regulations that does not duplicate the efforts and costs already incurred by British businesses. Indeed, it would be unthinkable to do anything that reverses steps towards a better environment.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

No, I will leave it, thanks.

Rather than scrapping any chemicals regulation, the industry wants to ensure that the system for managing chemicals is both risk and science-based to ensure a high level of protection for our environment and society. Furthermore, the Bill places at risk the UK’s fulfilment of legal obligations outlined by the trade and co-operation agreement. Should there be a breach of that agreement, the EU could seek to impose tariffs on UK goods, increasing the impact on consumers during a cost of living crisis. The Bill in no way delivers the frictionless trade and consistency that the industry desperately needs. Instead, it creates barriers to trade and is loading billions of pounds in extra costs on an industry that is already under pressure due to the energy crisis.

I also fear the Bill’s impact on investment. It saddens me to say this, but why on earth would a multinational company opt to invest in Britain where business life is so much more complicated and expensive when it could be on the continent of Europe where such impediments do not exist? That is not what people on Teesside who voted in large numbers to leave the EU wanted or expected. I seek assurance from the Minister that he will think again about ditching and minimise any deviation from the EU REACH regulations to protect our chemical and other industries.

The Bill also poses a significant threat to workers’ rights, as the TUC made clear. EU-derived law—we have heard this several times—currently delivers: holiday pay; agency worker rights; data protection rights; protection of terms and conditions for outsourced workers; protection of pregnant workers; rights to maternity and parental leave; and rights relating to working time. In many areas, it is unclear what will happen to the protections that workers currently rely on as a basic necessity.

The legal system could very much do without untold chaos. Where EU-derived legislation is restated by Parliament, previous judgments relating to those instruments will no longer be binding. Issues will have to go through the judicial system yet again. The result will be workers and employers spending more time in court to establish what the law now means.

It is worth reporting that, at the weekend, Sir Jonathan Jones KC, the former head of the Government Legal Department, said:

“I think it is absolutely ideological and symbolic rather than about real policy”.

That is shown particularly by the failure of Ministers to provide answers on which areas will be affected.

The Bill also undermines the sovereignty of Parliament, removing the necessary opportunity for scrutiny and giving unwarranted powers to Ministers to revoke, modify or replace laws through secondary legislation. When people voted to leave the EU and take back control, they did not expect to be handing that control to a small bunch of Tory Ministers to do what they liked. We cannot allow Ministers to commandeer the parliamentary process for untold control, enabling them to change vast swathes of our law. Businesses, environmental groups, legal experts and unions are united on the desire to avoid the complications that the Bill will create.

The fundamental flaw on which the Bill rests is that well-established laws currently offering crucial protections on workers’ rights, businesses and the environment can essentially disappear. The former Business Secretary would have all forms of rights and regulations axed, but his days are over. It is important that the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) takes the opportunity to review this madness before it causes unbounded chaos and focuses instead on tackling the real problems that our country faces.

Energy Update

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Greg Hands]

The hon. Lady is right to raise the matter of prepayment meters and prepayment customers. She is, of course, right to raise the issue of the most vulnerable, which is exactly where the Government’s overall package is targeted. The £37 billion goes hugely to disadvantaged people and households.

Ofgem has taken a number of actions on prepayment meters in recent times. It warned suppliers in June 2018 that prepayment meters should be installed only as a last resort for debt collection. It banned forcible installation for vulnerable customers in 2017. In December 2020, it introduced new licensing conditions, including an ability-to-pay principle and the obligation on suppliers to identify self-disconnection and self-rationing by prepayment meter customers proactively. A number of measures have been taken by Ofgem. Of course it will keep these things under review, and I am sure the Government will look at them as well. If there are more actions the hon. Lady thinks should be taken, I am happy to hear from her.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Many industries on Teesside and beyond that are dependent on natural gas as a feedstock are being ruined. CF Fertilisers has already ceased ammonia production in Billingham, while a second major local company told me that a decision could be taken within weeks unless something comprehensive is done, and it will close. The company has written to the Prime Minister. I await a response to my urgent letter to the Business Secretary on Friday, telling him that hundreds of jobs are at risk at that one company. The Minister spoke of some support to help energy-intensive industries, but it is totally inadequate to meet the needs of industry on Teesside and beyond. Will he please outline what assistance will be available for non-qualifying energy-intensive industries? Will he go away again and find another way to help the balance of industries, or is he prepared to see thousands of people lose their jobs?

[Greg Hands]

The Government are never prepared to see thousands of people lose their jobs, which is why we have taken such strong action in the last few years to make sure that our employment situation remains as robust as it is. Beyond that, the hon. Gentleman is asking me to make commitments that will be made by the incoming Prime Minister. He mentions CF Fertilisers, which is a company that we are keenly aware of. We have interacted with the company over a long period of time and will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

I could hardly say no. I look forward to doing that and visiting many great manufacturers across the country. We are highlighting the brilliant work of the sector, and we continue to champion it as a vital part of the UK economy.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The Government are well aware of the crisis they have created for energy-intensive industries such as those on Teesside. Now that the EU has set aside €50 million to help its firms with energy costs, British firms such as CF Fertilisers, which have no such support, face even tougher competition. I know the Minister is visiting the company tomorrow, but what will the Government do to address the impact of this EU funding on UK fertiliser production? Can he advise on when a decision will be taken about renewing the electricity compensation scheme for energy-intensive industries, which runs out on Thursday?

[Lee Rowley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He will be aware of the substantial support we have given manufacturers over many years, including more than £2 billion to mitigate energy prices. I note that in Teesside there have been recent announcements that demonstrate the confidence people have within manufacturing as a whole.

Reducing Costs for Businesses

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the strain that businesses are under following a difficult Christmas period and two years of disruption during the covid-19 outbreak; notes challenges are more severe in some sectors; regrets that businesses are struggling with increasing energy costs, high inflation, low growth and higher taxes as a result of the Government’s long-term failures and lack of adequate support; and therefore calls on the Government to reform business rates, to alleviate the debt burden by allowing businesses flexibility on Government loans and to implement a contingency fund to support businesses with high energy costs.

Our motion highlights the strain that British businesses have been under over a difficult Christmas period and acknowledges the further challenges that they will face this year. Most of all, I hope that it will facilitate a discussion about what this country needs to allow British businesses to grow and succeed, in order to ensure our and their future success.

I hope that we can take a moment at the beginning of the debate to recognise the toll that the recent challenging trading environment has taken on many people. When the shadow Chancellor and I met a wide range of businesses just before Christmas, I was struck by the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of many of the people present on the call. The uncertainty and the constant need to reinvent business plans and respond to changing consumer behaviour brought on by the pandemic have taken a toll on many people. The Government’s press conference just before Christmas, in which people were advised not to go out but no support package was offered alongside that advice, was genuinely very difficult for people. It was because of the testimonies we heard that day that we were so insistent that support had to be offered before Christmas. I am pleased that the Government changed course and recognised that additional need.

I am sure that we will hear from hon. Members in this debate the effect of that short-term pressure on businesses in the areas they represent.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Energy-intensive industries, such as those on Teesside, are under the cosh when it comes to the cost of gas, and not just for energy but as a feedstock in the production of a wide range of goods. Does my hon. Friend agree that without action on the highest prices in Europe, on gas transportation costs and on carbon costs, many companies could fail, costing thousands of jobs?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has put his case as he always does. I will mention energy-intensive sectors later in my speech, but the broader point is that the medium and long-term pressures facing businesses do not look much better than the short-term pressures that they have just come through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lee Rowley]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, and that is exactly the level of detail that demonstrates why, when the Opposition come to this House and put forward half-baked schemes, they immediately fall apart when they come under scrutiny, away from the warm words.

We have just gone through a business rates review, which we have talked about, although it might have been useful, consistent or, indeed, even slightly coherent for those on the Labour Front Bench to actually say what they were going to do over and above that. Of course we acknowledge the burden that rates impose. That is why many of us on the Government Benches are here in the first place: because we recognise over the long term that a lower tax burden is the way to make society and communities healthier, happier and wealthier. I can tell the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde how that is going, given that he sat on the Opposition Front Bench under the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who was going to raises taxes until the pips squeaked. As Conservatives, we know that a successful, dynamic, thriving private sector is the only way we get a strong economy in the long run. This is a Government that support business. We backed business robustly during this unprecedented crisis period, and we will continue to do so as we rebuild the economy following the pandemic.

This economic plan is working. The vaccine roll-out continues to play a key role in enabling us to lift restrictions, allowing sectors to remain open and businesses to recover. The UK was one of the fastest-growing G7 countries in 2021, and the same is likely in 2022. There are over 400,000 more people in employment than before the pandemic, and redundancies are below pre-pandemic levels. As we recover and move from the most unprecedented health situation of our lifetimes, we are moving towards the most unprecedented economics, whereby many economies are experiencing high inflation, primarily due to pressures from rising energy prices and disruptions to the global supply chain. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) highlighted the equivalence of inflation elsewhere in the world. Those global pressures are the main drivers of higher inflation in the UK. Global production and supply chains are in the process of adapting and adjusting to that disruption, and the Chancellor is working with his G7 partners to monitor global supply chain pressures and build a strong and resilient recovery.

Before I conclude, I want to spend a short time on the third part of the motion, energy. On recent high energy prices, I want to acknowledge the concerns of industry and business and make it clear that the Government are committed to them both now and in the longer term, as we work through these immediate challenges and volatile times, and then look to opportunities and challenges over the long term. The Government are constantly engaging with stakeholders, including large energy users, businesses and energy retailers, to consider what action may be necessary. The recent rise in energy prices over the autumn and winter has been driven by the increase in the price of wholesale gas, the demand for which has grown, as we and other nations have recovered from the covid-19 pandemic. Consequently, higher wholesale gas prices have been observed in Europe and Asia in the last half of 2021.

However, it is vital to note that this has not impacted our energy security. The Government continue to work closely with Ofgem, National Grid Gas and other key industry organisations to monitor supply and demand. At the same time, the Government are determined to secure a competitive future for all businesses, including those that are energy-intensive.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lee Rowley]

I apologise to hon. Gentleman; I need to make progress so that others can come in.

Many large energy users have already taken the sensible and responsible step of adopting hedging strategies to shield them from some of the exposure to gas and electricity prices. In recent years, although the Opposition never acknowledge it, we have provided extensive support, worth more than £2 billion since 2013, to help with the costs of electricity and to protect jobs.

Yet again, just as with business rates and just as with loan flexibility, we are left asking, “What would Labour actually do?” What is the detail behind the warm words? What are the changes that Labour will be proposing when the headline writers have moved on? How will the contingency fund work? Who will have access to it, and for how long? How will the moral hazard of those who have hedged be dealt with? What will be the definition of “energy-intensive”? How will the windfall tax work? How will Labour avoid reducing investor confidence or capital investment, ensuring that we have enough domestic energy to supply a transition to a greener future?

There are no answers, no detail, no nothing. This is Labour’s debate in Labour’s time with Labour’s choice of subject, but yet again we find ourselves without the detail, without the information, without the alternative—and why? Because Labour’s plan is no such thing. It seeks headlines rather than solutions, it offers soothing words rather than actual detail, and it plays politics when sober analysis and close working with industry are required.

I will end my speech by stating once again the Government’s belief in this country as a great place to do business. We have the lowest corporate tax rates in the G20, a regulatory framework that puts us in the global top 10 for ease of doing business, and a highly skilled workforce. It is easy to see why the UK is consistently home to one of the largest and most resilient economies in the world. That is why we are seeing so much excitement in the rest of the world about investing in the UK, not least when investors queued up to spend at the global investment summit last year. In the last 10 months, we have already seen a flurry of spending in the UK: a gigafactory in Sunderland, Ford and Stellantis churning out electric vehicles in the north-west, GE Renewable Energy and others creating an offshore wind hub in Teesside. That is a huge vote of confidence in the UK as a place to do business as we recover from the pandemic.

We will take no half-baked plans, no headline-grabbing stunts and no lessons from the Labour party. The Conservative party is the party for business, and we will continue to work with business and industry through difficult times to build the free-market, competitive and dynamic future that will make our country healthier, wealthier, greener and happier.

Income Tax (Charge)

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

It is certainly not those with the broadest shoulders who are being affected, and I thought the reason that the Government raised taxes was for social care. It is yet another guarantee from the Prime Minister that is not worth the paper that it is written on.

The IFS tells us this morning that taxes will be £3,000 more per household than when the Prime Minister came to power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) said in her excellent speech yesterday, this is about the choices that the Government are making. Also buried in the Red Book is that the Chancellor saw fit to cut taxes on the banks by more than £1 billion because he was so worried about the burden they were facing, just like last year when he made the choice to cut stamp duty for second home owners because he was so worried about them. He was obviously less concerned about the burden of higher energy prices facing millions of British people, because he refused to cut VAT on fuel as he should have done.

In a way, the most shameful part of the Budget is the Chancellor’s refusal to reverse his £1,000 cut to universal credit, which hit 6 million families. For all the smoke and mirrors, this morning we know the truth about universal credit. According to the Resolution Foundation, three quarters of families on universal credit will be worse off, even after the changes to the taper. It says that the taper changes

“will be overshadowed by last month’s £6 billion cut to entitlement: three-quarters of families on UC will lose more from the £20 cut than they gain from the Budget changes. Even if we also take into account the…National Living Wage, the poorest fifth of households will still be an average of £280 a year worse off overall.”

The fact that Conservative Members were wildly cheering a policy yesterday that sees millions of working families far worse off shows, I am afraid, that they do not get it either.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

When I wander down Stockton High Street, I see the signs of poverty everywhere. I see young people with no hope on their faces and no hope of getting a job. I see people who probably have to shop in the charity shops because it is pretty obvious that they have not been able to buy any new clothes for a while. I see families going discount store to discount store to buy one item because it happens to be a couple of pence cheaper than it is elsewhere. Did my right hon. Friend see anything in the Budget to correct that?

[Edward Miliband]

My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. That is why the boosterism of the Chancellor saying that it is an age of optimism will ring so hollow for so many people in our country.

You cannot build a new economy when you are hitting working families with a triple whammy of higher national insurance, higher prices and cuts to universal credit. That is more of the same. It is the Conservative economic model—year upon year upon year of stagnation for the British people.

Let me next come to the question of support for business in the Budget—the direct responsibility of the Business Secretary. Our businesses have been heroic during the covid crisis, closing their doors when asked and stepping up when they needed to. But while the economy may have reopened, the crisis is not over for so many of them. They face debts incurred during covid. They face the costs of the supply chain crisis. The Office for Budget Responsibility is very interesting on that, because of course there is a global dimension to it but there is definitely a British dimension too. They face the failure to plan for the changes arising as a result of Brexit—the OBR is very informative on this—and they face the energy price crisis.

Against this backdrop, I say gently to the Business Secretary that, as he will know, many of our businesses feel that the Government are engaged in finger pointing rather than finding solutions, with haulage firms told it is all their fault, when they warned the Government for months about the impending HGV crisis; those in the manufacturing industry—briefed against, not, to be fair, by him but by the Treasury—told that they are running their businesses badly because energy costs are soaring; and exporters tearing their hair out about the red tape of the trade agreement with the EU but told they just need to get their act together. What businesses want most of all, as he will know, is not to have a war with the Government but for their voice to be heard.

To be fair to the Business Secretary, a few weeks ago he did try to act to hear the voice of those facing the most acute short-term challenge—energy-intensive industries facing the energy price crisis. He knows that this is no ordinary situation. Our industries are facing not just the normal differential of price with our competitors but differentials far, far higher. I have met the Steel Council; he has met the Steel Council. He knows how tough it is. We know that he knows how tough it is because, to be fair, he told us two weeks ago how bad things were and said that he was talking to the Treasury. The Treasury was not very polite in return. He is chuckling from a sedentary position; I am on his side on this one. The next day, having obviously decided that he did not like being briefed against, he announced—I had my dealings with the Treasury when I was in government but I do not remember ever quite doing this—that he had made a formal request to the Treasury for support for energy-intensive industries. He was taking a stand.

That was on Monday 12 October, more than two weeks ago. On that day, a source told the BBC, rather encouragingly, that

“everyone in government understands the importance of this situation. We need to solve this quickly.”

It might have been the Prime Minister, who was on holiday at the time, or somebody else. That created a real expectation that this Budget would take action on this pressing issue that the Business Secretary has been publicly championing. So where is the help for our glass industry, our steel industry, our chemicals industry and our ceramics industry? These are some of the most important jobs in our country, valued in communities across all regions and nations of the UK. Does this not speak volumes about the Treasury’s—and, I am afraid, the Government’s—wanton disregard for some of the most foundational industries in our country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband]

It is completely consistent, yes.

Let me turn from industry to retrofit and insulation. Of all the things that were missing from the Budget and that I thought the Treasury would have been persuaded about, the one that is as close as we can get to a fiscal, economic, climate no-brainer is a proper 10-year retrofit and insulation plan. If we invest, we cut bills and carbon emissions, make ourselves less exposed to the international gas market, and create tens of thousands of jobs. I do not get why it has not happened. All we get are piecemeal schemes and no proper plan. I will not even go into the fiasco of the green homes grant—emissions from buildings are higher than they were in 2015.

[Alex Cunningham]

My right hon. Friend will recollect our discussions about the tremendous success of the warm zones project at the turn of the century. We went door to door, day in, day out, to install thousands of measures that saved consumers a tremendous amount as well as reducing emissions. Does he agree that we need that systematic approach if we are going to crack the problem?

[Edward Miliband]

I completely agree. I actually take a crumb of comfort from the Business Secretary, when he defends the sorry saga of the green homes grant, pointing to some of the money given to local authorities and what they did. That is what we need at scale—locally led, house by house, street by street. We are miles behind other countries.

On green investment, a philosophical difference is emerging. I worry that the Government will increasingly leave individuals and industries on their own to face the costs. I do not think that is true of the whole of Government, but the Treasury remains a fundamental block to the green investment that we need. There was a whole saga about its net zero review and the fact that it emphasises short-term costs rather than long-term gains. Frankly, that is a big problem for our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

All I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is watch this space and let’s see what happens.

[Alex Cunningham]

Jam tomorrow.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. I have visited his constituency—I have seen Teesside—and the picture of gloom, misery and devastation he paints is a total rejection of the optimism, dynamism and enthusiasm I see in Teesside. His negative attitude shows precisely why my friend the Mayor of the Tees Valley got 73% of the vote in the last election. [Interruption.] I am being told I am speaking loudly, but I am outraged that the hon. Gentleman should characterise his constituency in such poor and uninspiring terms; it is a disgrace.

[Alex Cunningham]

rose—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As well as supporting the Budget—

[Alex Cunningham]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an attack then will not give way.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He talks absolute nonsense: I have spent 11 years championing energy-intensive industries in my constituency, trying to ensure people keep their jobs. He knows that, because I have met him and talked about it time and again, and what do I see? I see very little action. It is about time he got on the right horse, got down to Ofgem and started talking seriously about how we can put things right for energy-intensive industries in my constituency.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I was not making a personal attack on the hon. Gentleman’s role. If he had listened to what I said, he would know I was not commenting on his record as an MP; I was simply saying that the tone and negativity he expressed in that particular intervention in this debate did a disservice to his constituents. I was making a specific point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am in the same place as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband): we do not know what planet the Chancellor is living on. But we do know that he urgently needs to get back in touch with reality. In yesterday’s Budget, he kept referring to the biggest investment changes in a decade and spoke of an “age of optimism”; I remind him that the only reason his investments look even remotely positive is that the past decade was defined by the devastating cuts and under-investment from Conservative Governments who have driven public services into the ground. Even if he was talking about new money, particularly for public services, it would replace only a fraction of the huge cuts over the past 11 years.

The truth is that this Budget is an underwhelming and uninspired response to the anxiety inducing cost-of-living crisis that our constituents face. Tax cuts for champagne and domestic flights will not go far to offset the difficulties of the long hard winter ahead. Over the next five years, real household disposable income is expected to grow by only 0.8% per year—far below the historical average. It is worth repeating what Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, said:

“This is actually awful. Yet more years of real incomes barely growing. High inflation, rising taxes, poor growth keeping living standards virtually stagnant for another half a decade”.

The rising cost of living is biting hard in my constituency and the Budget does nothing for those hit the hardest. Figures published yesterday by the financial management company Aryza showed that the average personal debt in Teesside stands at £19,345—the second highest average in England—yet a recent report from the North East Child Poverty Commission revealed that in the north-east, spending to support people in financial crisis fell by 78% in the decade from 2010 to 2020, and the number of local welfare assistance awards made in the region fell from more than 16,000 to just over 12,000.

I have seen local Conservatives spin the Budget as one that is good for the Tees valley, but that simply is not true. Once again, the Tees freeport has been trumpeted, but the actual forecasted benefits are extremely limited. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, the OBR’s October fiscal outlook notes that

“given historical and international evidence, we have assumed that the main effect of the freeports will be to alter the location rather than the volume of economic activity, so the costs have been estimated on the basis of activity being displaced from elsewhere.”

We have been promised tens of thousands of jobs, but now it appears that the Government’s own Office for Budget Responsibility suggests that that is nonsense.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That point about freeports ties in with the Government’s approach, which seems to me to be that they want announcements that get them photo opportunities and good press releases, and the MP who managed to get the freeport can then put that on their leaflets. But freeports contribute nothing at all to the overall picture; they just take from one area and give to another, which is no way to run the economy and to try to stimulate economic growth. We need a strategy by which everyone is helped to level up.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is totally correct: the Government rely on picture opportunities and short slogans to run our country. That is not the way forward.

We have had promises of jobs in the future that simply do not materialise. We do not want other people’s jobs: we want real, new jobs, not recycled ones. If it was all as grand at the Tories tell us, we would not still have around 10,000 more people unemployed across the Tees valley than there were in March 2020 and an unemployment rate 50% higher than the national average.

There was some good news in the Budget for the Stockton borough, but for me it was tarnished. I would not deny leafy Eaglescliffe and Yarm their success in being awarded levelling-up funding, but it was disappointing to see Billingham miss out once again, especially as it is in much greater need of levelling up. It just goes to show that the Tories like to talk a good game on levelling up—it is further proof that it is just an empty slogan.

As was mentioned earlier, the Budget contained nothing to address the high costs for energy-intensive industries, even though just weeks ago the country was on the brink of being plunged into a CO₂ supply crisis when CF Fertilisers in my constituency had to cease ammonia production because it was not economical. Energy-intensive industries, like many in my constituency, face a triple whammy of unsustainable costs. The sectors have been left reeling by the combination of sky-high gas, electricity and carbon prices that is damaging their ability to compete in international markets and risks domestic supply chains. While I, of course, welcome the announcement that a deal between CF and its CO₂ customers will see production at its Billingham plant continue until January of next year at least, industries such as these need longer-term support, including urgent reforms to the short-haul gas tariffs and progress at pace on carbon capture, use and storage.

There was not much at all on energy in the Budget. Companies such as Kellas in my constituency, which I visited a couple of weeks ago, would have hoped for clarity on hydrogen production and the potential balance between blue, green and pink varieties.

Once again, we saw nothing of the support that we need to tackle the health inequalities in my area. Stockton-on-Tees is often used as a case study to highlight health inequalities in the UK. Men who live in the town centre ward are expected to live 18 years fewer than their peers just a couple of miles down the road. In every Budget speech that I have made for the past 11 years, I have called on the Government to fund the new hospital that Stockton desperately needs. I am, however, pleased that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), seems to have joined my campaign around North Tees Hospital and has secured today’s Adjournment debate to talk about that very topic. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister later on today. I have also tried to enlist support for a new hospital from other north-of-Tees MPs, and I sincerely hope that they will lend their voices to the campaign, which would benefit all of our constituents hugely. They will have found it just as galling as I do that just a fraction of the billions of pounds wasted on a failing test and trace system could have built us a new hospital.

This Government have not spent public money wisely, and they cannot be trusted with the public purse. The Tees Valley needs systematic and long-term investment that is controlled at a local level by local people and local councils, that will make sure that families have enough to live on, and that will free our children from poverty. We also need a plan that will stop firms such as Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company and local steel firms going bust. We need to save and retain existing jobs as we await the promises of the future to be fulfilled. Once again, the Tories have failed to deliver anything like that. The Chancellor’s small-fry solutions will do little to help working families in our areas who are facing hikes in their Bills and lower take-home pay as we head into that long, hard winter.

Yesterday, the Chancellor said that it was a tall order to complete the spending review, and that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) was just the man for the job. Sadly, he and the Chancellor have given the people of my constituency and the entire country short shrift.

Carbon Capture and Storage

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) on securing this extremely important debate. I was trying to find something to disagree with him on, and I struggled to do so.

I am absolutely delighted, with my Teesside and Humber colleagues, that we will be at the forefront of Britain’s carbon capture, utilisation and storage plans as part of the east coast cluster. I have long made the case that Teesside should be the home of the first cluster, because it offers the best opportunity to decarbonise industry of anywhere in the UK. With the east coast cluster, as everybody now knows, almost 50% of the carbon emissions in the UK could be removed.

I set up the all-party parliamentary group on carbon capture, utilisation and storage about seven years ago, when it was not exactly fashionable to talk about it. We wanted to ensure that the Government recognised the importance of CCUS in achieving net zero. To her credit, the former Energy Minister Claire Perry got on board, but she was badly let down by her Government and the then Chancellor, George Osborne, who at the stroke of a pen the night before Budget day set the industry back several years. Had he not stripped away £1 billion pounds of funding that dark day, we would already have a maturing carbon capture and storage industry and a much cleaner environment.

However, we are where we are, and we need to get on with the job. The east coast cluster will make huge inroads in cutting emissions, and I am extremely pleased about the economic possibilities that the cluster presents for our area. We cannot afford for the Government to let us down again; we must ensure that this time we get the project over the line. There is simply no time left. Industries are already struggling and if further action is not taken soon, they will be unable to continue and we will fail to meet our environmental targets.

Earlier today I attended an energy-intensive industries roundtable on energy prices and listened to Debbie Baker from CF Fertilisers—the company in my constituency that found itself at the centre of the recent carbon dioxide crisis. It has huge energy costs, huge gas transportation costs and huge carbon costs as well. It desperately needs the Government to take action in those areas. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it will take a wee while before we get the CCUS infrastructure in place, so it is critical that other action is taken in the shorter term to ensure that we do not lose companies such as CF Fertilisers and those in other energy-intensive industries in my area and across the country.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire talked about keeping calm and carrying on, and that is critical. He covered the issue of spending and the need for the right funding regime, and I agree with him on that. I hope that the Minister will take some time to outline how the funding mechanism will work to give us that clarity. I am pleased with what the Government are doing. I will not get many pats on the back from some colleagues for saying that, but I am pleased because it will make a difference for Teesside. I hope that the Government will ensure they deliver on that this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My father worked for the Cummins engine company for 40-odd years. That was almost next door to the Cleveland Bridge & Engineering Company, which has now gone to the wall. Does he agree that that was a great sadness, and that the Government let the company down?

[Peter Gibson]

I am grateful for that intervention. Having worked extensively with the administrators, local government and the unions in respect of Cleveland Bridge, I assure the hon. Gentleman that every step that could have been taken to save that business was taken.

In conclusion, Darlington and the wider Tees Valley were there at the beginning of the first industrial revolution. Once again, we are centre stage in the clean, green revolution as we stride towards net zero, which carbon capture is central to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Hands]

I will deal with the points raised by the hon. Members for the Scottish National party before taking further interventions. As I say, this was a transparent process. We looked at the five criteria: deliverability, emissions reduction potential, economic benefits, cost considerations, and learning and innovation. Scoring was informed by robust, expert-led scrutiny of the cluster submissions, and the clusters selected to be sequenced as track 1 were those with the highest combined weighted score across the criteria.

Turning to the points raised during the debate, I praise my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, first of all for his excellent introduction. I know he likes his history and his science, and he gave us a masterclass in both. He has been combining the two from the first time he took a call on this topic while on The Times news desk. He is right about the potential for the UK to be a CCUS superpower, given the UK’s geology, geography and economy, and the interaction between those three things. I also thank him for praising this Government for being more committed than any other.

We had a collection of fantastic contributions from Teesside to South Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) praised the proposal and the role of the private sector. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer); my very first ministerial visit in this new job was to Hartlepool. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, who I have already mentioned.

The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) has been full of praise for the Government decision. He is right that Teesside is delighted. Other Members have referred to Ben Houchen, the Teesside Mayor, who said:

“This project would create thousands of jobs and put Teesside at the forefront of the new green industrial revolution.”

May I correct the hon. Gentleman on one thing, though? It is popular in UK politics to kick George Osborne, but I have to correct the hon. Gentleman, who said that Claire Perry’s proposal was thwarted by George Osborne. I checked back, and Claire Perry became Energy Minister on 12 June 2017, a full year after George Osborne ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way?

[Greg Hands]

I will not. It was also four days after George Osborne left the House of Commons.

[Alex Cunningham]

You are wrong.

[Greg Hands]

I can check back, and I can check with George, but I think the hon. Gentleman’s dates are not correct.

On the points raised by the Scottish National party Members, there was quite a bit of heat about this yesterday, and I really dislike the implication that the UK is making a political decision to favour one place in this country as compared with any other. This has been a transparent process, and we set out the criteria. They called it an arbitrary decision, and it definitely was not. We have been full of praise for the Acorn Project and we remain absolutely committed to track 2. The commitment is to two such projects by the mid-2020s and four by 2030.

Finally, the Carbon Capture and Storage Association called yesterday’s announcement “amazing news”.