Household Energy Bills: VAT

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

My constituent Gillian Fish from Billingham has seen her dual fuel bill go up from £39 to £94.28 a month, and she fears that, with just £33 left each month from her employment and support allowance after she has paid her essential bills, she will not be able to afford to leave her home. She does not smoke, she does not drink and she is ill enough to need a mobility scooter. I do not know what to say to her. Can my hon. Friend offer me some advice?

[Rachel Reeves]

I would say to my hon. Friend’s constituent that, under Labour’s plans, £600 would be taken off her bills in April compared with what will happen without Government action. That protects my hon. Friend’s constituent and many millions of constituents like her who are struggling through no fault of their own right now.

During his Budget speech, the Chancellor said that the role of “Government should have limits.” I wonder if the Chancellor’s refusal to act so far is because he does not politically believe it is the role of Government to help alleviate soaring energy bills, or is it just that it is not a priority for him right now? The complete absence of action from Government speaks for itself. People deserve a Government who are on their side. Labour has a plan for action now to help with bills and to prevent the Government’s mistakes of the last decade from being repeated again. We want to give support and security to families now and to keep bills low for the future. That is why Labour will reduce our reliance on imported gas by accelerating home-grown renewables and new nuclear. Our plan to make sure that 19 million homes are warm and well insulated will save households £400 not just for one year, but each and every year on their bills. We will regulate the market better, with a pledge to never again let energy companies make promises to working families that they cannot keep.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)]

I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) has said, the motion has clearly been put forward to seize control of parliamentary business, which we cannot and will not accept.

The Government recognise the pressure that people are facing in their household finances, including on their energy bills, and we have taken steps already to ease those pressures where and when we can, and will of course continue to look at other things we can do. The reality is that the higher inflation that we have seen is primarily due to global factors relating, to a large degree, to the fallout from the pandemic and a global spike in energy costs. This Government are never afraid to do what is right, or to take big decisions on behalf of this country, and the action we have taken during the pandemic is testament to that fact—£400 billion of direct support to the economy, protecting millions of jobs and livelihoods. We are also investing over £600 billion in gross public sector investment over this Parliament, investing in our health service, in our education system and in controlling our borders, bringing tangible improvements to the lives of millions.

Wholesale gas prices remain at very high levels. Some of the key drivers of the current price spike are the cold winter last year and wider international events that are driving demand. It is true, of course, that gas remains an important part of the wider energy transition that is under way. The current situation in the global gas market underscores the importance of diversifying our energy mix and accelerating the deployment of renewable energy in this country. The shift away from carbon-intensive generation is likely to help insulate the UK from global swings in the prices of commodities such as gas in the future, and indeed, precisely because we have invested in renewables and energy efficiency, UK demand for natural gas has fallen 26% since 2010, which has helped to reduce our exposure.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister heard me speak earlier about Gillian Fish from my constituency, who has seen her dual-fuel bill jump from £39 to £94 a month, leaving her with just £33 for food and travel. What has he got to say to her? We have given the House our answer to the crisis; what is the Government’s answer to this crisis for Gillian?

[Mr Clarke]

Well, this is the Government who have introduced the £500 million household support fund, which is designed to help the most vulnerable households during the course of this winter. This is the Government who are making sure that we are delivering through our action on universal credit and on the national living wage, the rise in which will come into effect in April, and through the wider package of support, which I will come on to in a moment, including the warm home discount, cold weather payments—all the things that are designed to ensure that we give targeted support to people like Gillian who need it. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that Teesside is one of the best examples of levelling up that we have had anywhere in this country. One only needs to look at the response of the Teesside public to what is happening in our area to see the difference that a Conservative Government are making for our community.

Our record of investment in renewable energy is, of course, in great contrast to that of the last Labour Government. Labour’s 1997 manifesto specifically stated:

“We see no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations.”

The legacy of that is now seen today. While in government Labour failed to diversify our energy supply, with renewables making up just 7% of our energy mix, compared with 43% today.

While the up-front costs of certain technologies may be high in the early years of their deployment, they are falling over time. We have already seen the cost of offshore wind fall dramatically, together with that of solar panels and batteries. Our heat and buildings strategy set a clear ambition of working with industry to reduce heat pump costs by at least 25% to 50% by 2025, and to parity with gas boilers by 2030.

On the specifics of this debate, as I alluded to a moment ago, we have already introduced measures to support vulnerable households with the costs of energy, including increasing the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments, which together provided almost £2.5 billion in support to households last winter.

Budget Resolutions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I agree with many of his comments, particularly those on the cladding scandal, which I have been involved in considering as a Select Committee member since 14 June 2017. I definitely agree that we need to go further on the issue.

I very much welcome the Budget, as my hon. Friend did, although not just what is in it. I welcome the optimism with which the Budget was presented, and I welcome the way it was contrasted with the pessimism of the Opposition parties. We are a party that believes in the future of this country and the individuals within it, and we believe that we can make a genuine difference to their lives.

We must bear it in mind that the Budget is set against a backdrop of the reduction in the size of the economy that began 18 months ago, which was the sharpest contraction in any of our lifetimes. As a consequence of the Government’s interventions, that contraction has been followed by the fastest growth in the economy we have seen in our lifetimes. That has certainly put us back on a par with countries that people said were doing better than us through the crisis, such as Germany. The effects on GDP and on unemployment have produced far better outcomes for us than many people predicted.

We must put that in context. The huge economic fallout from covid was totally unexpected, although we were ready to deal with the economic fallout caused by leaving the EU. I voted to remain, but never argued that our economy could not succeed outside the EU. There were going to be short-term challenges, as we have seen to some extent, but, rightly, the Government have seen that in moments of crisis there are moments of opportunity. That is exactly the way we should approach this, and the move to a higher wage, higher skilled economy is absolutely right. The key to that is having control over immigration, which we never could have had within the EU.

Owing to that and owing to the covid crisis—principally because of the covid crisis—we have some real pinch points in our economy right now. There are labour shortages across the economy; this is not just about HGV drivers. Almost every sector I speak to is having labour difficulties, not least in Thirsk and Malton. There are difficulties in some of our pig supply chains and our pig farmers are having real problems in getting the pigs off the farms and into the meat processing plants because there are shortages of some workers, who farmers would normally get from further afield. That is due to Brexit to a certain extent but is mainly down to covid.

The other big issue that we must confront and which we will be dealing with for some time yet is inflation. Predictions of inflation topping at 4% seem likely, so that will cause some pressure for people, particularly those on low incomes. Nevertheless, both issues—labour shortages and inflation—are short term and they will be resolved in time.

The longer-term issues we must deal with involve demographics and the ageing population. That is good news as it means we are living longer, but the ageing population will put huge pressure on the taxpayer. The OBR is not always accurate, but its central prediction is that, owing to the cost of healthcare, social care and pensions, our debt to GDP ratio, which is 100% of GDP, will be 400% by 2060 if we do not change our system of taxation. That is a frightening thought for the Treasury, but it is something the Treasury will have to confront and deal with.

Rather than throwing lots of money at everything without expecting to raise taxes, or criticising tax increases to pay for our spending, as the Opposition do, the Treasury has taken a sensible, balanced view. It is balancing day-to-day payments and shifting the burden away from taxpayers’ earnings, so that it is subsidised not through the tax system, but through employers paying more to employ people, while people keep more of the money—hence the universal credit taper, which I absolutely welcome. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, I think it is a far better use of taxpayers’ money to provide a greater incentive to work, rather than simply paying people through other taxpayers’ contributions to their income. That is absolutely the right way forward.

If we are to head off the prospect of our debt being 400% of our GDP, it is critical that as well as making work pay, we get the economy growing. To do that, we have to make business pay. That has been my life—I started up a business—but there are so many benefits: not just the opportunities for businesspeople, but the fantastic effect on the consumer. The best way to drive down prices and drive up services for consumers is to have more competition. In my experience, having started a small business that we grew into a larger business, the one thing that makes us more competitive is competition. That is the key: a competitive economic environment. That is what we have to try to engender.

Hon. Members have talked about cutting regulation and making it simpler to establish a business. I support all those things, as long as we put sensible protections in place, but the No. 1 thing that we can do to engender a positive business environment is to have a fair and level playing field. It encourages more entrants; it encourages people with all kinds of business model to start up and scale up. Businesses want a fair and level playing field and simple and stable taxation.

I welcome what the Chancellor has done on alcohol duties: a simpler, more stable alcohol taxation system is absolutely right. There has been a massive simplification, and I would like to see the same principle applied to one of the biggest barriers to a competitive environment and to a fair and level playing field in our business world today: business rates. Business rates create a massive distortion between physical and online retailers, which is deeply unhelpful.

The Government have done a lot—I think that they have put about £11.6 billion into easing the burden on lots of business sectors—but that still creates winners and losers. Whenever reliefs, much as I welcome them, are put in place, people will fall on either side. I know that the measures are only short-term, so we need longer-term reform, as many hon. Members have said.

There seems to be a debate about online sales tax, and the Government seem potentially to be heading down that road. The Opposition say that the digital services tax should be increased sixfold, which I have to say I think is a bonkers idea. It will hit very few retailers, or even hit marketplaces only. When the levy was put in place, Amazon added it straight to the cost of goods; the Opposition’s proposed increase would be added straight to the cost to consumers. It is absolutely wrong to do things in that way, but I welcome at least the efforts to solve the problem.

I believe that we should scrap business rates completely. The system is completely archaic; I absolutely believe what the Labour party says about that. In my view, we already have an online sales tax: it is called VAT. A simple solution—not easy, but simple—would be to add the £25 billion cost to VAT while lowering the threshold for VAT registration.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Well, I am happy to have a debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should think about what I am saying, rather than simply ruling it out. It would create a fair and level playing field, it would raise the same amount, and it would mean online retailers trading in exactly the same way as physical retailers. It would be a simple solution to a very thorny problem.

I sympathise with the Treasury, because this is not easy. To my mind, the Opposition solution is totally unworkable.

Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I will make a little more progress but will happily take another intervention in due course. Having gone from no interventions to a flurry of them, I should probably press on.

The scar of poverty is not just about not having material goods, a roof, warm clothes and warm food. It is about a lack of freedom, having nothing to spend on yourself, having choice exercised for you—either by others or by necessity—and finding your voice and your own choice squeezed out. That is what the Government’s changes do, but it does not need to be like that.

Labour has a clear plan for how we would secure a better future for our country and steer a path for our economy in the months ahead. We would not be pretending that a national insurance rise without a plan is the way to fix the NHS, we would not be cutting universal credit in just a few weeks’ time, hitting working families hard, and we would not have spent 18 long months handing out huge amounts of taxpayers’ money through outsourcing and crony contracts while hitting working people for tax again and again. We would not be telling hauliers that they were crying wolf. We would be taking action day and night with employers and trade unions to fix the supply chain disruption that is leading to higher prices and fewer goods. We would not have sat back for the last decade as rent, childcare and rail fares soared.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

When I wander down Stockton high street or through Billingham town centre, I can see the signs of poverty everywhere in faces that are tired, faces that are anxious and faces that look older than their years. Eventually, poverty kills. The decision to leave thousands of my constituents in this situation is a political one. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are one of the richest nations in the world, it is time that the Tories’ choices changed for the better?

[Bridget Phillipson]

Yes, absolutely. These are political choices—who we seek to prioritise, what we do from Government and what matters most to us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I thank my hon. Friend for her point, and this is absolutely right. The furlough scheme has been absolutely essential to supporting the UK throughout this very difficult period. It has been an historic success, and we only need to consider how serious the employment situation would have been had we failed to intervene and failed to show the decisive leadership that this Government have shown.

[Alex Cunningham]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I give way to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).

[Alex Cunningham]

As a fellow Tees Member of Parliament, the Minister will be aware that at the height, just a few weeks ago, there were 12,000 more unemployed people across the Tees Valley than there were in March last year. How does he reconcile that with talking up the Tees Valley employment situation?

[Mr Clarke]

I do so quite readily when I look at the extraordinary potential of our local economy. We have all the new jobs coming in at the Teesworks site, the former Redcar steelworks site. We have the hope and potential of green industry, which the hon. Member champions, as I do, with all the jobs in carbon capture, utilisation and storage as well as hydrogen. There is the new GE Renewable Energy factory, which will employ 2,500 people. Its construction starts incredibly soon, and it will be fully operational by 2023. Those are the reasons for hope and optimism. Of course, I will never apologise for talking up Teesside, just as we should never apologise for talking up the UK economy. We have done an extraordinary thing in this country: we have got through the pandemic—we have weathered the storm—and now we can move on to the recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

This could not be a more timely debate. My constituents and people across the country are looking with great apprehension at the winter to come, fearful about how they will make ends meet. I welcome the Minister to his post, and I appreciate what he said about the economic support offered, but that is not unique to this Government or any other. Governments around the world have sought to support their citizens through this pandemic, and many have done so more compassionately and more competently than those sitting across from us on the Tory Benches.

Many have done that from a better starting point, too, without public services stripped bare from a decade of austerity and a welfare state that punishes people for their circumstances, and without the worst inequality in north-west Europe. And none of them has embarked upon a project so thoroughly deficient and self-defeating as Brexit, which has left businesses carrying higher costs, shelves empty, and skilled people—our neighbours and friends—leaving this island in their droves because this UK Tory Government have made them feel so unwelcome. Scotland voted for none of this.

To the here and now, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have food shortages and price rises, inflation increasing, cuts to universal credit and tax credits, the end of the pensions triple lock, a regressive national insurance hike, the end of furlough and the self-employment income support scheme—for people who were lucky enough to be eligible for that scheme rather than excluded from it—and now the prospect of spiralling energy bills as we head into the depths of winter.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Member has just mentioned energy prices. I do not know whether she saw that Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation said:

“The autumn is looking like a cost of living crunch.”

He added that four in 10 households

“will see their energy bills rise by 13% (£153 a year) at exactly the same time as their income falls by 5% (£1000 a year).”

He also mentioned inflation, which is expected to get to 4%. What does she think that will mean for the poorest people in our society?

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Member is perfectly right to point that out and to refer to the words of Torsten Bell. He came to the Treasury Committee to give evidence about some of the things that we are facing in the months ahead. Many constituents will just not be able to cope with this. They will become more indebted, they will struggle to get by, and they will find it difficult to get back out of that debt, get on with their lives and be productive members of society. This is a significant crisis, which this Government are ignoring and making worse by their inaction.

This Tory Government have already created the perfect storm: a cost-of-living crisis atop an already weak and stagnant economy. Citizens Advice Scotland found that more than 1.4 million people in Scotland ran out of money before payday at least once in the last year. Sarah Arnold, senior economist at the New Economics Foundation, found that 2.5 million working families on low incomes will lose £1,290 a year because of the double whammy of the cut to universal credit and the increase in national insurance contributions. That is utterly unjustifiable.

It may not mean much to those on the Government Benches, but that is an enormous amount of money to many people across this country, which cannot be made up through a few hours’ work, as the Work and Pensions Secretary appears to believe. It is the difference between just getting by and not coping at all, between being able to put food on the table or relying on the food bank, between keeping the lights and the heating on or disconnecting from the power supply.

I am an honorary vice-president of Energy Action Scotland—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—which has found that one in five households with a prepayment meter regularly self-disconnects because they simply cannot afford to top it up. Of those households, 88% contain a child or someone with health issues. Those on prepayment meters will struggle the very most in the months ahead—they always do—and this UK Government do absolutely nothing to support them. The stress of watching the meter eat what little money has been put in it is an experience that I am sure few on the Government Benches will understand, but I have had constituents shivering, living in one room under blankets and duvets, because no matter how much money they put in that meter, they cannot keep their home warm.

There is a significant impact on older people, carers and people with disabilities, whom this UK Tory Government have often completely ignored. That is a group whose energy bills are higher. My constituent Rob McDowall is among many already worrying about how to keep warm this winter. Like Citizens Advice Scotland, he is advising people to seek assistance and advice right now. While I fully support attempts to seek advice, this UK Tory Government should take their responsibilities seriously too.

Energy costs will increase more in Scotland due to our geography. This is a life and death issue. Living in a cold home causes illness, and Energy Action Scotland has found that there are around 2,000 excess deaths in Scotland each winter as a result. That is a scandal in energy-rich Scotland, but it is a reflection of how broken the energy system is—a system entirely reserved to Westminster. Around 25% of energy bills is the cost of UK Government levies and policy choices, as well as VAT. That disproportionately hits those on low and middle incomes. The Treasury must do something now to alleviate that burden. That is in its hands.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I also congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer), on her maiden speech. I am sorry that her Tees valley colleagues have now abandoned her, because I wanted to share some child poverty figures with them. Since 2015, the number of children in poverty has gone up by 1,800 in Stockton South, by 2,000 in Hartlepool and by 1,900 in each of Darlington, Redcar and Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. Will the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) address the children in the Tees valley and persuade Tees valley MPs to vote against the universal credit cut?

[James Daly]

From recollection, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool will tell me if I am wrong, Ben Houchen got 74% of the vote. Conservative MPs have been elected in Labour areas of the Tees valley because we give hope and we have a plan. This Government’s plan for jobs is working, whereas Labour has offered nothing to the Tees valley over the past decades. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool and other Members in that area are putting forward plans that are changing lives, for which they should each be extremely proud.

I come to the second part of the debate. In Bury, we have seen unprecedented support during an incredibly difficult period. How do I, as a Member of Parliament, feel about the Government policy? How do I look at what we should be doing to change people’s lives, give hope and inspiration, and make sure that people can make the best of themselves, having the best career, best-paid job and best future? I have heard no arguments —no plan, definitely—from any Opposition Member in respect of how that is going to happen; I have heard no hope, no vision, no anything for children in Bury or in the Tees Valley about how their lives are going to be transformed by a Labour party. I have heard bland generalities.

The shadow Minister said that the Labour party would create a high-skills, high-wage economy, but they are going to be too late, because this Government are doing it already. We are investing billions of pounds in skills uptraining, not only to give young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds the best chance to have a highly paid, skilled job, but to regenerate our areas. In an area such as Bury, we have to have that skillset so that we can bring in high-tech manufacturing and make sure that those jobs are closer to our communities, so that people, including young people in Bury, do not have to go to Manchester or London to have a highly-paid job.

This Government have a plan that is delivering; the plan for jobs is delivering, and we can see the kickstart figures. We are creating, through youth hubs, kickstart and all the other programmes that have been outlined, a set of policies and programmes. Bury College is part of a bid for institute of technology status for Greater Manchester. What does that mean? It means colleges in Greater Manchester are working with the University of Salford to create the means by which high-skilled, high-worth employment is going to be on the doorstep for people, with the skills training that is being delivered. I had the privilege of going to Bury College with the Minister two weeks ago; the T-levels that have been introduced by this Government are inspiring aspiring people and changing lives, making people’s futures brighter—we cannot overlook that.

We have a transformative Government. Every decision made is regarding levelling up. Everything we decide to do is done to transform opportunity. Sadly, the Labour party is not interested in that and certainly does not have a plan to do it. So I congratulate this Government. There are challenges. We are dealing with a £400 billion pandemic, for which there is no panacea, but this Government have done what they have needed to do to protect people’s livelihoods and interests, and to support families throughout this period, with unprecedented financial support. We are now on to the next stage. The plan for jobs is working; it is hope, it is aspiration and it is changing futures and lives in communities such as Bury. I support the Government wholeheartedly on that vision for our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) for that very interesting analysis of what we ought to be doing now.

For households and families living on the edge, a cost of living crisis is a crisis that they simply cannot afford. To cite just one statistic, in my constituency of Coventry North East, the rate of child poverty already stands at 29%. Once the cuts to universal credit, the rise in national insurance contributions and an increase in a wide range of household bills are factored in, I am certain that the number will rise significantly. A cost of living crisis, therefore, will not just result in a short-term squeeze on family finances but will have a long-term corrosive impact on the life chances of thousands of children across the country.

Many of the people I represent in the community I grew up in work hard but in low-paid and often insecure jobs. The Government’s disregard for, or lack of understanding of, the challenges that these communities face was demonstrated recently by the Work and Pensions Secretary, who claimed that individuals facing the £20 cut to universal credit should work two more hours a week. Yet it was soon made clear that in fact it would take about nine more hours a week to make back the £20 cut. Is the Work and Pensions Secretary seriously saying to these people that they should essentially have a six-day working week: that they should sacrifice their weekends; their family time; their time for rest and relaxation? It is all well and good saying that we need better-paid and more secure work, but in communities like Coventry North East we need Government investment and support to make it a reality. So far, despite all we have heard about levelling up, we have not seen any tangible evidence of this in Coventry.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend knows that these people use the same supermarkets that she and I use, and they have so much less money. She knows, as I do, about supply and demand, and if there is less food and less product around, the prices go up. I do not go to supermarkets very often, but recently, when I do, I have noticed that product is being fronted on the shelves with very little behind it, so there might only be 20 or 30 cans of beans instead of 200 because there is a food shortage in some product areas. Does she agree that the Government really need to act on employment and getting drivers in place so that we do not face these kinds of shortages?

[Colleen Fletcher]

I thank my hon. Friend. Unlike him, I do go shopping a lot. I spend a whole lot of my time in supermarkets, for different reasons, and I entirely agree with him. I see that around my constituency an awful lot, not just doing food shopping, I hasten to add, but other shopping as well, which I thoroughly enjoy when I have the time for it.

It becomes clearer each day that the interests of my constituents will never be served by a Tory Government who simply do not understand, or do not want to understand, the difficulties faced by my constituents. Successive tax rises have demonstrated that even though my constituents were some of the worst affected by the pandemic, in terms of their health as well as their finances, the Government have made the political decision to ensure that they will bear the bulk of the costs of this crisis and will be offered scant support if they are struggling.

I urge the Government to pause and reflect on their recent decisions and offer a better deal for people like those who live in the communities that I represent to ensure that we can get through any cost of living crises together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Member makes me reflect on a family matter of my own. When my grandad was killed in a pit accident, my dad had his apprenticeship, and my granny went out and scrubbed floors to ensure that he completed his apprenticeship. But today we find that grandparents are looking after grandchildren—perhaps because somebody is in prison or because they have a drug problem—yet they do not get help, and even those people are going to lose this £20 of universal credit. Would you credit that?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Stories like this belong 100 years ago; stories like this do not belong in the 21st century. We should not have constituents who are in absolute poverty coming into our constituency offices.

This motion is about the working poor. My great-granny’s mother did not have money to buy what she saw as necessities; she obviously did not have enough money to buy food and stuff but was helped out in that, but she also could not go to church because she could not buy clothes for church. She had her working clothes but could not buy Sunday best clothes to go to church; that was her biggest regret about not having money. Nowadays, people on UC may not be able to afford internet access, which they need to get their UC, or to afford other things we see as necessities. Not many people are wanting a Sunday outfit to go to church—some are, but not that many—but they desperately need access to the most basic of services so they can get their UC and make their claims, and so that they can speak to friends and family and not be hugely isolated.

A cut of £80 a month is a huge amount. For a lot of people, £80 a month is their council tax bill, or two mobile phone bills, or—goodness knows—one pair of shoes for the kid, maybe two pairs for those who are particularly lucky and their child is going to wear something a bit cheaper. It is a huge amount of money, not pennies; it means people will have to cut back on a big, major bill when this cut is implemented. My great-granny remembered her mother crying because winter was coming and she could not afford to buy shoes for the children. That was over 100 years ago; this should not be happening today—we should not be having single parents crying because they cannot afford to buy winter shoes for their children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist]

I absolutely agree about the need for additional council housing.

The rise in national insurance will disproportionately affect younger people and those on low incomes. It is absolutely right that we need more money for the NHS and social care after years and years of cuts, but it cannot be right that it is the lowest-paid earners who pay for it. The Government’s plan will not end the crisis in social care or help to fix the backlog in the NHS.

[Alex Cunningham]

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about the Conservatives not really understanding the plight of people living on universal credit. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it might be a good idea for some of them to spend a month living on the income of a person on universal credit? Not just that, however. Let us load them with a debt of £10,000 and say that they have to pay off some of that debt out of their income as well, and maybe they might understand a little bit more.

[Liz Twist]

I would not like to load anyone with debt, frankly, but I do wish that people would understand what it is like to live on universal credit, and not just for a week or a month, with no recourse to a cash pot in the bank on which they can draw if they run out of money. Many of us will not understand that, but it came home to me very clearly when I became a councillor and an MP just how much on the breadline some people are, with no access to credit cards or other finance. It is a really difficult life for people.

I was talking about social care. As I said, the Government’s plan will not end the crisis in social care or help to fix the backlog in the NHS. It will take money from those already struggling financially, without fixing the problems. What my constituents want to know, when we talk about social care, is what services they will be able to access. We have talked about money and the need to address that, and we have talked about caps. What we have not talked about is what the Government’s social care plan means for those of my constituents who actually receive social care, with people coming in to look after them. Will they receive a better service? Will the staff, many of whom will be caught by the universal credit cap, see decent pay and conditions, and recognition for the really important work they do? We are missing a huge piece of the jigsaw and the Government need to address that. Labour has said that there are many other ways to raise the money, including taxing the incomes of landlords, and of those who buy and sell large quantities of financial assets, stocks and shares. Labour has been clear that we want those with the broadest shoulders to carry the burden.

I want to talk a little bit about the excluded, because so many of my constituents during the pandemic, including the self-employed, have found themselves facing real problems. They were excluded from any schemes that the Government brought forward and in many cases they were excluded from universal credit because of money that they might have put away for tax, or small amounts of money. Lots of single people running dance schools or hairdressers or working from home have found it hard to get through. It is really important that we recognise the pandemic’s impact on them. I know from Zoom calls with my constituents—people who own beauty salons, people who were creative—how much they have been affected. They really have suffered.

Lastly, I pay tribute to Gateshead food bank, Gateshead Council and the many other local organisations that have picked up a lot of the slack. They are doing a great job, but for goodness’ sake, it should not be necessary in this day and age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

This debate has made me feel like I am living in a parallel universe. Listening to Conservative Members—if they were still here—we would think everything in the garden is rosy, but Opposition Members know only too well that the cost of living crisis serves as a stark reminder that this Government are not serious about supporting ordinary working people. It confirms to us that they lack ambition when it comes to affording our people a life of dignity in which they can support themselves and their family and comfortably grow old with the assurance that they can support their children and grandchildren.

The economic settlement of the past four decades has smashed the unwritten guarantee that each successive generation will have it better than their parents. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is that life is precious and that it is for living. Yes, those who can should contribute to society but, crucially, people should get something back and be able to enjoy their time with family and friends, rather than having to receive state support while in work. They should not have to rely on food banks or have to work three jobs just to make ends meet.

The system is not on the side of our people. Indeed, most callous of all, retirement itself is fast becoming a distant dream for so many in areas like mine in the north-west who fear that they will not be able to afford it. If only I had £1 for every time I heard someone say, “I will have to work until I drop.”

As the Scottish trade unionist Jimmy Reid put it:

“A rat race is for rats. We’re not rats. We’re human beings.”

In my constituency of Liverpool, Wavertree, I regularly come across people who do the right thing, work hard and pay their taxes. They are honest, decent, salt-of-the-earth people who operate in the real economy across all sectors—care workers, hospitality workers, call centre workers and those who run small and medium-sized businesses—and too many now tell me that they feel the system has failed them. After all, our people, working-class people, picked up the tab after the last economic crisis in the form of austerity, the biggest squeeze on wages and living standards since the Napoleonic wars and so much besides, and now they will do so again.

Conservative Members will no doubt trot out the same lines about their inadequate increases in the living wage and the personal tax allowance, which ironically they are now freezing—they even cite rising wages in certain sectors. Some might say that their intentions are good. Ultimately, success is measured by outcomes, and on every metric this Government are failing. If they were serious about supporting our people, their priorities would be wholly different.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend mentions the salt of the earth. For me, the real salt of the earth are kinship carers, the grandparents who take on their grandchildren because their parents can no longer look after them, yet they get a very raw deal. Does she agree it is time the Government recognised the value of kinship carers and the money that is saved because of the burden they take on? Does she also agree that kinship carers can do without this cut to universal credit?

[Paula Barker]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The points he raised are completely pertinent and I agree with all of them.

As I was saying, if the Government were serious about supporting our people, their priorities would be wholly different. We would not see a hike in national insurance. We would not see the scrapping of the £20 UC uplift. We would see a proper funding settlement for local government, rather than backing our cash-strapped local councils into a corner over regressive tax increases. We would see action to tackle rising energy costs—that infamous Marxist idea, according to David Cameron. It is an idea once proposed by my former leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband).

Finally, something often missed in debates such as this: we would see recognition of the role of the trade unions in reducing inequalities in the workplace and across society. In the coming weeks, Members from across this Chamber, including on the Government Benches, will have the opportunity to support the private Member’s Bill on fire and rehire introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). I can say with certainty than an effective system of collective bargaining across sectors of the economy will not cost the Chancellor a penny—he may even save a few pounds.

Research from the New Economics Foundation shows that modelling produced for one of its reports indicates that by the end of the year, without a change in Government policy, 32% of the UK population, or 21.4 million people, will be living below a socially acceptable living standard, as measured by the minimum income standard. That is a third of people in this country, and it is absolutely shameful. Numbers like that tell us that the time for tinkering around the edges is over. Inequality is not some vague concept; it has real consequences for communities such as mine. What is economics if not the allocation of wealth, power and resources? Opposition Members believe in a fairer, more equal and democratic distribution of all three.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), who made such a powerful and passionate case, so rightly pointing out the false economy that inequality represents.

Thousands of families in my constituency, like families across the UK, have taken a real buffeting over the past 18 months, and this month could bring the perfect storm for them as the furlough scheme ends, the universal credit uplift is scrapped and the cost of living spirals upwards. The pandemic has had a significant impact on household finances, which have been stretched to breaking point, and not everybody is able to weather the storm as easily as others.

Conservative Members like to claim that their Government have fixed the roof while the sun is shining, but the reality is that the Tory roof is made of straw and a cold wind is blowing. Worrying research from the Bevan Foundation has found that one in three Welsh households does not have enough money to buy anything beyond everyday items, while more than one in five households with a net income of less than £20,000 have seen their income drop since January. The planned cut to universal credit will only deepen these inequalities, as those on the lowest incomes will be pushed into poverty and destitution.

In Aberavon alone, more than 7,000 households receive universal credit. For those families, the £20-a-week uplift has been a lifeline, protecting those who have lost income and preventing them from slipping into poverty or having to visit the food bank to feed their families. It is important to note that of the 7,000 households in Aberavon that are on universal credit, 2,000 have registered since the start of the pandemic. The idea that the removal of the uplift is somehow not a cut is deeply disingenuous, because the 2,000 households that have registered since the start of the pandemic have certainly not known any other rate of universal credit. The Government’s claim is blatantly and deeply disingenuous.

The uplift has made a real difference to family budgets. My inbox has been filled with emails from residents telling me how it has helped them to meet the cost of essentials and allowed them to pay their bills, make the rent, put food on the table and switch the heating on. To some, £20 a week may seem like a small amount of money, but to the families I am talking about it makes a world of difference and would have been crucial to help them with rising energy bills and the escalating cost of the weekly shop. They are now deeply anxious about their precarious finances and worried about how they will make ends meet without the uplift.

The reality is that we are potentially moving into an age of anxiety. The anxiety that is now afflicting so many millions of families and households throughout the country saps the strength from the recovery and defeats growth. It is a brake on growth, which is why the Government’s policies are so deeply damaging. They are not only the wrong thing to do in a civilised society but the definition of a false economy because they are putting a brake on growth and holding back the recovery.

Some of those who contacted me are shopworkers and carers who worked through the pandemic and now face the cut to universal credit. That is no way to thank them for what they have done. Members on the Government Benches stood on their doorsteps applauding our key workers; now they reward them with this cut and a cost-of-living crisis. Their hypocrisy is breath-taking.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend talks about people applauding on their doorsteps; when I put a question to the Prime Minister when he was talking about his tax increase, he said that the Government do not pay care workers. Apparently, somebody else does, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Government pay grants to local authorities, and that money goes to carers? We hope that some of the extra tax money will go to local authorities to pay care workers, so is it not about time that the Government said, “We’re paying for the fiddler so we’re going to decide the dance”? They should decide the level of pay for care workers and it should be much higher than it is now.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), has confirmed, we are committed to a proper living wage in this country of a minimum of £10 an hour. Government Members constantly ask for Labour’s plan; there is one absolutely key element of it. It is about making work pay and rewarding the heroes of the pandemic: those who kept our economy running and our supply chains open. Rather than rewarding them with cuts and destroying supply chains, we should seek to build an economy that works for everyone.

The grim reality is that around 40% of the families who claim universal credit are in work, but that work is insecure and involves short hours or low pay. They are claiming universal credit not because they are workshy but because the Government are presiding over an economy in which jobs are not paying the bills and low-paid people are forced to top up their income. If the cut to universal credit goes ahead, it will be the biggest overnight cut to the basic rate of social security since the foundation of the modern welfare state. It will plunge families into poverty, forcing them to rely on food banks. But it is the very definition of a false economy: it would remove £7.3 million from the economy in my Aberavon constituency alone. This money is not saved by families; it is spent in the shops and the businesses in my constituency, helping to stimulate the local economy and helping to create jobs. Without it, spending power will decrease and the economic recovery will be stymied. Government Members have rightly stated that we need to grow our way out of the recession, and yet they are promoting policies that will put a brake on growth. It beggars belief.

This squeeze on living standards is not inevitable. Poverty is a political choice. The squeeze on living standards is a political choice. The Government have made the choice of hitting hard-working families with a double whammy of cutting the universal credit uplift and hiking up national insurance contributions. At a time when food, fuel and energy prices are going up, this will place an enormous burden on hard-working people. It is the Government’s choices that have shaped an economy that has become less resilient and less secure. The Government’s botched Brexit and failure to plan for crises such as the pandemic have combined to expose our declining sovereign capability—our lack of supply chain resilience, the empty shelves in the supermarkets, the shortage of HGV drivers, and delays at our border and ports. All of this is combining to drive up prices, and it is hitting working families in their pockets.

Two hauliers in my Aberavon constituency, Frenni and Owens, have told me about the detrimental impact that the shortage of HGV drivers is having on their businesses. Owens estimates that they are 150 drivers short and that that is reducing their capacity by about 1,000 full trucks a week. They desperately need the Government to take urgent action to address the shortage. What that demonstrates is that the economy is interconnected and that the impact on supply chains impacts on prices, impacts on the cost of living crisis, and impacts on working families. The Government should be doing all they can to support families through these tough times, not pulling the rug out from under them. They must start by cancelling this cruel and self-defeating universal credit cut. Then they must build an economy that works for all, by tackling insecurity at work, lifting people out of in-work poverty and increasing the minimum wage to at least £10 an hour. Then they must tackle the cost of living crisis by sorting out the chaotic shambles of their botched Brexit.

If the Government’s levelling-up agenda is to be anything more than empty rhetoric, they must change course. They must stop this race to the bottom and strive instead to build an economy that works for all. They must stop their complacent, blasé approach to Government and get their act together to address the huge disruption that has been caused by their botched Brexit deal.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Tories are keen to talk up the importance of work, and I agree with them on the importance of work—good paid jobs must be the answer—but they also allow many firms to go to the wall. The latest in our area is the world-renowned Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company, which built the Sydney Harbour Bridge and the Tyne Bridge. Hundreds of jobs in the main firm and in the supply chain have now gone, as neither the Tory mayor in the Tees Valley nor the Government were prepared to do anything to sustain those jobs, simply because the company had a cash-flow problem. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we need to protect the jobs that exist today and not just dream of jobs in the future?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. Much of the debate today has been about the immediate impact of the universal credit cut and the immediate impact of the cost of living crisis, but we need to examine the fundamental structural weaknesses in the British economy that have seen a massive decline in manufacturing, and that has been turbocharged by 11 years of Tory neglect. We have ended up concentrating so much of our economy in London and the south-east around the financial services sector. The financialisation of the British economy has ended up driving inequality, with a very small percentage at the top being paid eye-watering bonuses while the rest of country is left behind. We have shifted from being a country that makes things to a country that consumes things—a country that is fuelled not by production, but by consumption, and which is floating on a sea of debt. All those structural weaknesses have been chipping away at the resilience of the British economy for 11 years now, and the pandemic and the botched Brexit are now combining to expose the profound lack of resilience in our economy. Therefore, although today’s debate is extremely valuable and important, it fundamentally needs to be seen in the context of 11 years of Tory failure, neglect and a failure to look at the foundations of our economy.

I have the largest steelworks in the United Kingdom in my constituency, and steel is a case in point. The hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who represents a steel constituency, is not in his place now. We have seen the act of industrial vandalism that saw the closure of the SSI works in Redcar on the watch of the Tory Government; the total and utter failure to address exorbitant energy costs, which are crippling the British steel industry; the failure to stand up to China and the dumping of Chinese steel on the markets, which has deeply undermined our competitiveness across the world; and the failure to have a patriotic procurement policy that would enable us to focus on buying British steel when those opportunities arose. If we are serious about the transition to a green economy, we will never get there without a resilient and vibrant British steel industry. Our steel industry is just one example of how the Government have allowed our manufacturing sector to decline over the last 11 years that they have been in power.

[Alex Cunningham]

There is some good news this afternoon, because I understand that the Government have actually helped out and we have some form of agreement with CF Fertilisers—the company that makes fertiliser from natural gas and produces 60% of the country’s CO₂, which is so desperately needed for everything from beer to anaesthetic systems in hospitals. Will my hon. Friend welcome that, but also reflect on the fact that the company had to go to the brink of failure before the Government chose to act on energy prices and the other factors that were affecting it?

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head; we appear to be in a constant state of crisis management, based on the fact that there has not been long-term planning. The gas crisis was foreseen by many people years ago, and it was based on a concern about the Government’s failure to deliver gas security by enabling the additional storage of gas. We do not have gas stockpiled in the way that most other advanced industrialised countries across the world have. This is another example of the Government being asleep at the wheel and not having that long-term planning in place.

We have a Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who does not believe in industrial strategy. He has closed down the Industrial Strategy Council at the very time that we need a partnership between the state and business to drive our economy forward. These fundamental issues have to be addressed. We have to look at the cost of living crisis, and develop a partnership between the state and business. We must have the long-term planning in place that we so desperately need.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I would very much like to give way to my hon. Friend again, but Mr Deputy Speaker is looking at me in a way that tells me that perhaps it is time to finish my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He will not know this, but I spent a long part of my career in the gas industry. I remember taking a group of women journalists offshore to the Rough field, off the Humberside and Yorkshire coast. Does he agree that it is extremely lamentable that the Government allowed that storage facility to close down and that that wonderful facility—the first of its type in the world—is no longer in use for gas storage?

[Stephen Kinnock]

There we have an absolutely spot-on illustration of precisely the problem that I was alluding to, which is that many of the issues that have been exposed by the pandemic are a failure of long-term planning. That is another example of a false economy. It is about the culture of looking at the immediate bottom line. Knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing is the definition of the way in which this Government have been running the country for the past 11 years.

The value of resilience is about understanding the need for investment and about investing in order to save for the future. Prevention is always cheaper than cure. That is why, with the up-front investment that has been so sorely lacking over the past 11 years, those chickens are now coming home to roost. We therefore need to develop a new political culture, a new business culture and a new commitment in this country to security, resilience and partnership. On that basis, the issues that we are addressing today are the symptoms of the problem and not the cause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Dhesi]

The hon. Lady eloquently makes my point, and even that calculation of two hours has been demonstrated to be completely off the mark; the number of extra hours hard-working Brits will need to work is actually nine.

Another main issue on which constituents ask for my help is housing, and, sadly, that is unsurprising. Average rents have risen by £456 in a year, the highest rise since 2008, rising above average wages by over £2,000, leaving home ownership a distant or impossible dream for too many in the next generation.

[Alex Cunningham]

The issues my hon. Friend raises will also result in more debt. Is he surprised to learn that debt in this country is 123% of household incomes and that there have been 27,662 individual insolvencies in the second quarter of this year? People are in trouble now, and if this additional help is withdrawn how on earth are they going to make ends meet?

[Mr Dhesi]

My hon. Friend has demonstrated in this debate that he is an endless fountain of statistics; despite not being on the call list, he has made many interventions that make hard-hitting points to which the Government must listen.

It is important to highlight that home ownership is an impossible dream for so many in the next generation. That is because the quality and quantity of social and affordable housing is wholly inadequate, an issue the Government have failed to address despite being in power for well over a decade. A report showed that affordable housing increased by just 1% last year—90,000 homes short of the bare minimum needed to tackle this crisis. What about those who own homes that are now worthless due to Government inaction on unsafe cladding? That is an absolute shambles. It means a mother of two going without food to pay her rent and feed her children, and others moving from property to property due to rent arrears and evictions. One constituent even told me that their struggle with paying rent and bills made them feel like

“there is no way out”.

It is a vicious cycle—a downward spiral. Is this really the kind of society we want to live in post pandemic? I certainly do not.

We need to realise the potential in our great country and give businesses, families and young people the tools that they need to rebuild and prosper, not break them down before a recovery has even begun. We have a fantastic business hub and innovation centre in my constituency. Prior to the pandemic, we had among the highest business start-up rates in the entire country, we were in the top three for productivity, and we had a booming private sector providing thousands of jobs. But instead of giving the hard-working people of Slough support to ensure that they can once again thrive, these measures are pushing them further down.

In conclusion, I want to see ambition from this Government genuinely to rebuild stronger than before, with a greener, more efficient and innovative economy that will benefit us all, not just a select few.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I thank the hon. Member, or perhaps I can suggest friend. Indeed, we have been insulated these past 10 years from the ravages of inflation that some of us know—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) would say this—can erode business confidence and have an extreme impact on household budgets.

[Alex Cunningham]

I well remember the Thatcher Government, when interest rates went up and up and up and up. Even those on good wages were struggling, so it was even more difficult for others. There is a storm ahead for many people. Does my hon. Friend agree that savings are very important? The average savings for a low-income household are £95, while a high-income person is likely to have £63,000 in savings. Who is going to come off worse?

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We all have to understand that it is easy to talk about numbers and statistics in the abstract, but the reality for so many people, as he illustrates, is that they do not just have the uncertainty and insecurity of zero-hours contracts and the pressures of the cut to universal credit, but having so little money in the bank brings pressures on households. And here we have inflation about to rip into those households through the energy price increases I am going to come on to talk about.

I talked about the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. Those in corporate business and in senior positions in Government must know what is happening to inflation. They must know what forecasters are saying. When commodities are bought, all energy costs are forward priced—they know what is coming down the track—so the Chancellor could suggest only a 1% increase for nurses when he knew all along that there was likely to be a significant spike in inflation coming. Energy costs are a major issue, one that has perhaps been the driver to this particular debate, alongside the cut in universal credit. We have long known for months that there was going to be an increase in gas prices of 12% in October. That will have a significant impact on household bills. The average gas and electricity bill for customers will go up by £139 a year to just under £1,300. Now, we have to rely on the Government to get a grip to avoid further increases as a result of this unfolding crisis.

It is fundamentally a failure of long-term Government planning over the past decade that we, as a country, are so exposed and vulnerable to rising gas prices. We should have been building energy resilience, instead of being one of the countries most reliant on foreign gas. We should have been investing in domestically produced renewable energy. Instead, we squandered 10 years burning fossil fuels. When I was working on Warwick District Council as a councillor seven years ago, I proposed the Warwickshire energy plan to save people money, create energy resilience and address energy poverty. Sadly, there was not the gumption to follow through on that, and I am disappointed it never materialised.

[Matt Western]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. I think the important thing is that the Cameron-Osborne Government in particular became obsessed with fracking and took their eye off the ball with other energy sources. In Warwickshire, we had Algy Cluff come and visit; he was a significant donor to the Conservative party, I think, and he was really interested in having blocks under Warwickshire that he would frack. That undermined long-term planning for projects like the one that my right hon. Friend mentions.

If the Government had followed through, we could have been building zero-carbon homes since 2016. Instead, the Cameron, Osborne and—dare I say it—Liberal Democrat Government scrapped the regulations for housing developer donors. A million homes could have been built since 2016, but something like 10% of households in my constituency are in fuel poverty already and I can only see that figure rising. Several thousand homes in my constituency could have benefited from forward-thinking house building and zero-carbon homes, because we have seen such an explosion in house building across south Warwick and south Leamington.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend might not know this, but I was in the gas industry for many years, as I mentioned earlier, and I was involved in a warm homes system. We went door to door, systematically insulating people’s homes and windows doing all manner of other things, but the current Government have done away with that. They have also done away with much of the responsibility on energy companies to do more in that space. Does he agree that energy companies could be expected to do much more to insulate our homes?

[Matt Western]

I absolutely agree—it is such a key point. There are so many schemes that could be introduced, and there is some excellent practice across Europe; I think it is currently beyond the wit of the Government, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for council housing I am certainly keen that we should push for it.

On energy costs, I go back to the point about heavy manufacturing. I am passionate about our manufacturing sector—not just the automotive sector, which I have talked about often, but chemicals, aerospace and steel. We have heard the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) made about the impact on steel, but the impact will be felt throughout our manufacturing: steel goes into the food and drink sector as much as into automotive and elsewhere.

The reality is that the price varies for energy. For gas in the UK, I think that I am right in saying that there is a 40% premium against the average in Europe, which is making us uncompetitive in comparison and will have an impact on future investment and, ultimately, on jobs.

Food prices are another big driver of inflation. The price of food and drink in shops and supermarkets has risen by more than 1% in August, the highest growth since 2008. Food commodity prices have increased by 17% since the start of the year. The Food and Drink Federation says that the cost per household of food and drink shopping will increase by more than £160 per year because of Government policies—that is the federation speaking, not me.

Various hon. Members have mentioned the supply chain disruption, which will lead to higher prices. We have heard about the shortages of heavy goods vehicle drivers, but there are also shortages of refrigerants and carbon dioxide, and of course there is the additional complexity of delays at borders and ports.

I turn to travel. I asked the Minister about the price of petrol, but in July petrol prices hit their highest level in almost eight years. It now costs £74.26 to fill a 55-litre family car with petrol, a 17% increase—17% seems to be a repeating figure—since the start of the year, by the Government’s own data. Diesel, by comparison, has risen by just 14%.

Rail fares are not faring any better. The Government are planning fare rises of 4.8% next year, way ahead of inflation. The average commuter faces paying £3,300 for an annual season ticket, 50% more than in 2010. An annual season ticket from Leamington to London, incidentally, now costs £8,700, a significant amount of money.

As for housing, rents have risen at their fastest rate since 2008, at a time when we are seeing declining home ownership, and the vulnerability that confronts so many people as more and more are living in the private rental sector. Rents in the west midlands are now £1,192 higher than they were in 2011, and incomes have certainly not kept pace with that.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is spot on. Short-term thinking often costs much more in the long term, and impacts of that kind will have very long-term consequences on people. We all know about the impact on mental health and how that can then affect people’s home lives, social lives and family lives, but it can also affect their working lives, which can have an economic consequence too, as well as increasing costs in the national health service and elsewhere.

We need to build more social housing for rent. Just 21 social rent council homes have been built in the Warwick district since 2010.

Let me now turn to the unimaginable and, I think, inadmissible cut in universal credit. It just underlines how out of touch this Government are that they are cutting the £20 uplift. Reversing that decision would prevent families from experiencing an even sharper hit during this cost of living crisis. I think it shameful that the very workers who got us through the crisis are now in the firing line for a £1,000 cut in their income every year. I think about the carers, the shop workers and the delivery drivers—all the people who kept the wheels of the economy turning through such difficult times. Data from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows that in Warwick and Leamington, which I think many people would assume to be a prosperous area, 13% of working-age families—6,300—and 29% of working-age families with children will be affected by the cut. This really is a poverty policy.

We have heard a great many claims about levelling up, but the one area in which the Government seem to be succeeding is levelling up on taxes which are more regressive than ever. We may think back to the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%; now we are seeing a rise in national insurance and rises in council tax across our local authorities. The average band D council tax set by authorities in England in 2021-22 is just under £1,900, a 4.4% increase on the 2020-21 figure. These are real costs to people. As we have heard, the national insurance increase is the biggest tax rise for families—the most significant change—in 50 years. Graduates now face a marginal tax rate of nearly 50%: that, surely, is a tax on aspiration.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend talks about tax rates. He will be interested to know that a tweet has just come in from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation saying that

“191 Conservative seats will see more than a third of working-age families with children affected by the cut to #Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit. There’s still time for the Government to listen to the huge opposition to this cut and change course”.

I know that my hon. Friend will agree.

[Matt Western]

I can assure my hon. Friend that I absolutely agree with that. It was so telling that five or six former Conservative Work and Pensions Ministers said that they were absolutely against this cut. Of course, everyone on this side of the House is against it. It is also quite obvious to economists that the uplift should not be cut but left in place. The cost is £6 billion, I think, and in the context of some of the overspends that the Government have been guilty of during the pandemic, that is actually very little.

The cost of living tsunami that families will face in Warwick and Leamington and across the country this winter shows just how out of touch this Government are. Instead of making positive plans to tackle it, I am afraid that they are simply making it worse. We have the national insurance and council tax increases, and now we have the universal credit cut. The Government are failing to tackle the supply chain disruption that has been exacerbated by covid and Brexit, and we now have rising energy prices, rail fare increases and rising rents. The Government seem to be happy to waste huge amounts of taxpayers’ money on outsourcing and crony contracts, and I just feel that they are really out of touch. They seem to know little about the true cost of living.

We have a Prime Minister who spends—or rather, gets his donor friends to spend—tens of thousands of pounds on the refurbishment of his flat, and a Chancellor who is happy to spend a significant amount of money on a swimming pool, but they will seemingly not listen to all of us saying that there is a need to retain the £20 uplift. I was really surprised when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), did not know how much it cost to fill up a car. I will tell him: it is 77 quid. He had no idea how much people spent on petrol a year. I can tell him that it is 17% more than it was at the beginning of the year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are committed to levelling up opportunities across the UK, including in Rother Valley. The £4.8 billion levelling-up fund will invest in infrastructure that improves everyday life across the UK, including by regenerating town centres and high streets, upgrading local transport and investing in cultural and heritage assets. I look forward to working with him for his local area.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]]

Will the Minister guarantee the future of the steel industry in Hartlepool? [Interruption.] Anybody will do.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Kemi Badenoch)]

As I said in answer to earlier questions on this issue, the Government are providing unprecedented support to the steel industry. If the hon. Gentleman has something specific to bring to my attention about the steel industry in Hartlepool, I am happy for him to write to me and I will look at the issues, but I have already answered the question and talked about the measures of support that are in place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on the specific impact that he and we all, as constituency MPs, have in our constituencies. I think he knows—we have discussed this at some length—that we are always happy to look for more schemes and more suggestions, if he would like to write to me with some details of what he has in mind. He will also be aware that, as I said, I am meeting the Federation of Small Businesses, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and, in due course, I hope the all-party group to discuss these issues in more detail.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

  During a covid briefing last week, a Health Minister suggested that the north-east is highly unlikely to be moved from tier 3 to tier 2 this side of the new year, even if there is a review in two weeks’ time. Does the Chancellor share this message of no hope for the north- east? Will he publish his secret dashboard on the economic impact of covid, and does he agree that the Government need to be honest with the hospitality sector and go much further with support to stop more businesses going bust?

[Rishi Sunak]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully to what the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary have to say immediately after these questions, and I believe there is hope for all parts of our country as we fight against this virus. With regard to this dashboard, I would refer him to the document published, which contains a sectoral dashboard and, as I said, links to further information that people can find about the regional composition of their local economies, sectoral business resilience and employment outcomes.

Covid-19 Economic Support Package

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rishi Sunak]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. If they did care, we would hear from the shadow Chancellor how many jobs Labour’s lockdown would cost.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the generous Chancellor for giving way. Today, the North East Child Poverty Commission said that 35% of children in the north-east region are living in poverty. As a direct result of Conservative policies, we are going to see that number increase. What is he going to do about those children?

[Rishi Sunak]

The most vulnerable have been at the forefront of our mind throughout this crisis, which is why it is clear from the distributional impact of our interventions, which was published over the summer, that they have benefited those on the lowest incomes the most. It is there in black and white: a Conservative Government making sure the most vulnerable are protected through this crisis.

Any responsible party of government would acknowledge the economic cost of a blunt national lockdown. The Labour party may say it has a plan, but be under no illusion: a plan blind to the hard choices we face—a plan blind to and detached from reality—is no plan at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Hospitality is one of Britain’s biggest employers. Some 3.2 million people across the country rely on hospitality for their jobs, including 4,300 of my constituents in Dudley South. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has always been a real and true friend of the beer and pubs sectors, in particular. He knows how much they have been affected by this pandemic, and he has delivered a comprehensive and unprecedented economic support package. Without such a support package, many thousands of pubs and breweries would simply not have survived the spring. They would not have got through the first phase of this outbreak.

I do not know whether the Chancellor has seen his rather fetching likeness on posters in pubs up and down the country, recognising the contribution that many of those support measures have made to making our pubs and other hospitality viable over the past six months but, as we are now firmly in a new phase of the pandemic, new measures are vital for those businesses that are not necessarily legally compelled to close. For those that are required to close their doors, the grant he has announced, although it may not cover the whole rent and all the fixed costs, will make a substantial contribution to the costs those businesses incur even before they pull a single pint or serve a single meal. However, there are also enormous challenges facing venues that are not legally compelled to close, those in tiers 1 and 2, where the legal restrictions that have been introduced make it impossible for them to operate. We know that one in 10 pubs has never reopened since March’s lockdown, and about two thirds of those that did reopen were already trading at a loss last month. That was before the introduction of 10 o’clock closing, mandatory table service, and of course the new restrictions that have come into effect today.

[Alex Cunningham]

Simon Longbottom of Stonegate, one of the largest pub groups in the country, has written to me about this, and he could have been making the speech that the hon. Gentleman is making now. He is very concerned that in tiers 1 and 2, he gets no help with his business costs whatsoever. Can the hon. Gentleman give the Chancellor some direct advice on what he needs to do about that?

[Mike Wood]

I would not presume to attempt to direct my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, beyond saying that pubs and hospitality cannot, of course, continue to operate with almost no income and without additional support that is proportionate to the legal restrictions they face. Those restrictions may not be in their immediate area. I have heard today from Titanic Brewery, a brewery in Stoke. The majority of its customers are in Liverpool and Merseyside, which are tier 3 areas, but that brewery will not receive support even though that is where its customers are based. These pubs need urgent additional support; otherwise, many of them are going to close their doors for good and never reopen, which would be a huge loss to not only our economy, but our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow a fellow north-east MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). The UK has one of the highest covid-19 death rates in the world, with thousands of lives lost and families torn from their loved ones far too soon. The UK is also on track to have one of the worst recessions, with millions out of work and people looking for employment in the most hostile conditions imaginable. Yesterday, it was announced that the UK unemployment rate had surged to its highest level for over three years at 4.5%. The disastrous mix of the pandemic and Tory incompetence continues to decimate our jobs market.

While the national picture is devastating, what is happening in the north-east of England is utterly catastrophic. We have among the highest mortality rates for deaths involving covid-19 and our unemployment rate has soared to 6.6%, the worst in the UK. As Niamh Corcoran of the North East England chamber of commerce said yesterday:

“The North East now finds itself with the highest unemployment rate, the lowest employment rate and the lowest average hours worked of all British regions…Although the Government’s amendments to the Jobs Support Scheme offers some support for our region in the event of tighter restrictions, it does not go far enough.”

For thousands of families, their income is precarious, dwindling or has disappeared, and new child poverty statistics released today by the End Child Poverty coalition show that the north-east has seen the biggest rise in child poverty. In my constituency and next door in Stockton South, the proportion of children living in poverty has risen to 34% and 29% respectively, with others in the Tees valley higher still. Those are not empty statistics, but represent thousands of living, breathing children plunged into poverty as a result of poorly paid jobs or no jobs at all for their families.

The Tees valley is haemorrhaging jobs. Some 12,565 have been lost since March, and thousands more are now destined for the scrapheap thanks to the Tory response, yet businesses in tier 2 lockdown, such as those in my constituency, have no safety net whatever. They are not legally mandated to close, yet we know for a fact that many of them will, and many will not open again. They will have few, if any, customers, but they will get no proper support from the Government. Simon Longbottom, CEO of the Stonegate Pub Company, which has 10 pubs in my constituency, said:

“Whilst we are continually working to protect jobs, with every new instruction from Government our delicate business balance fractures further.”

Even businesses that are mandated to close will only get partial support for wages, which can only mean another wave of job losses.

Across the Tees valley and the north-east, we are crying out for serious and sustained economic investment. Our Tory metro Mayor promised job creation for the Tees valley, but he has spent £100,000 on each job he has created in the last three years. Then there is Houchengate. The Tory Mayor proudly donned his hard hat to announce that he was spending £1 million on a new gate to an industrial estate, with few, if any, jobs. That £1 million could have provided 100 vulnerable businesses with a £10,000 lifeline and probably saved many of them from closure. Sadly, it has been spent on a gate. There is no protection scheme for jobs. For every job announced in the last three years, five have been lost in the last six months.

We need a serious vision from the Government—one that is not just about creating a few eye-wateringly expensive new jobs but about protecting the good jobs that already exist. If the Government do not act, not only will we see the poor suffer even more in communities like mine in Stockton North, but many families who have never experienced poverty in their lives will experience it for the first time. That is not a place that we as a country want to go.

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies (Environmentally Sustainable Investment) Bill

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 11th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She is right that Co-operatives UK is supportive of the Bill, its principles and its spirit, as am I, but it did say that it was “impractical and counterproductive” and that the detail needed to be filled in at a later stage. My point is that this is lacking in detail and is not clear.

I will give her an example. In proposed new section 27A(3) of the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014, the Bill states:

“A green share may be transferable but is not withdrawable”.

However, proposed new section 27B discusses the detail of withdrawing and redeeming shares. This is clearly contradictory. I suspect that the Bill should have said that the green shares are non-transferable but are withdrawable, which would have made it consistent with shares currently issued by other co-operatives and their members. My point is that the Bill we are debating today is just not clear enough and the detail is lacking, as I will mention in a moment.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Government Members have been very kind to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), saying how great her intentions are and coming up with some excellent ideas to improve her Bill, so why do they not take their good ideas into Committee, discuss them there and bring back a Bill that is fit for purpose?

[Gareth Davies]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As I will go on to explain, I think the issues are deeper and more multivarious than I have sought to describe.

If the Bill raises questions, the substantive issues raise even more. I have five issues with the Bill. First, it does not allow co-operatives to issue shares to non-members unless they are a group. The distinction leaves co-operatives without the right tools to raise capital for non-green ends.

Covid-19

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) [V]]

I could have addressed many issues in this speech, among them the grief in my own community, the plight of child nurseries that face bankruptcy, small businesses that do not qualify for any support, individuals who have been caught between jobs and are not being furloughed, the hunger of children across the country because the Government refuse to issue school meal vouchers during the Whitsun holidays, or the fear of families with relatives in care homes. But I have opted to talk specifically about health, because of the disproportionate effect the coronavirus has on communities like mine. I pay tribute to all the key workers who look after us every day.

As we know, covid-19 is a respiratory virus that affects the lungs and airways. That is why lung health is an integral part of how we tackle this virus now and respond to the ongoing effects it can have on a person’s lung health. The majority of deaths from covid-19 in the UK have occurred among people with pre-existing conditions. Data from the UK covid symptom tracker app shows that smokers are more likely to report common covid symptoms, and smokers who contract coronavirus are more likely to experience severe symptoms.

Prior to this crisis, I regularly called on the Government to do more when it came to lung health—to reverse the cuts and fund public health properly, to have better tobacco control and to tackle health inequalities. As colleagues may know, there is a 20-year average life expectancy gap within my Stockton North constituency. Men living in the town centre ward can expect to live 20 years fewer than a man living in Wynyard. While there are other health challenges, much of that health inequality is down to lung health and the Government’s failure to tackle it head on. Investing properly in tobacco control and smoking cessation services would achieve the Government’s ambition of a smoke-free England by 2030 and reduce health inequalities, but more importantly, it could lift over 1 million people out of poverty, including 250,000 children.

There has been much talk about how long the coronavirus could be around and whether it could mutate and reinfect. I am not a scientist, so I, like the vast majority of people, cannot answer those questions. But we cannot take a gamble with people’s health and their lives. If someone is more likely to die from covid-19 with a pre-existing condition, we need to tackle the root causes of pre-existing conditions. That means tackling health issues in areas like mine—the areas with the poorest communities. Smoking cessation is an excellent place to start. I hope that the Government will see it as not just appropriate but necessary to restore all funding for services that help people to stop smoking. When households stop spending money on tobacco, it can lift them out of poverty and increase the disposable income available to spend on local communities rather than lining the pockets of transnational tobacco firms, but the services need to be there to support people to quit smoking. A polluter charge on tobacco companies would go a long way to funding those services, so will the Minister commit to introducing this charge to provide a sustainable source of funding for tobacco control?

We need to give lung health the attention that it desperately needs, not just during the coronavirus crisis but afterwards, because we do not know whether this will happen again and we need to be ready. Improving the health of those with the shortest life expectancy is part of the answer. We need to be working on prevention so that if this happens again, we are ready and we will know that we will have saved lives simply by looking after their lung health now.

Budget Resolutions

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

This Budget is slightly different from others we have seen over the years. Suddenly, spending billions on industrial investment is not being mocked by the Conservatives, as it was when Labour pledged to do it just four months ago. So let me start with what is good about this Budget: hundreds of millions for carbon capture and storage and an indication that Teesside may well be one of the centres for a project. It would, however, be good for the Government to come forward with a statement confirming that Teesside will get a project. After all, it is better placed and more ready than anywhere else to help the Government to deliver the kind of project that can be world leading.

Members may know that I set up, and have been the chair of, the all-party group on carbon capture and storage for the past six years. I have met with Ministers. I think they were all convinced of the case, but nobody could get through to the Treasury. I have tabled questions, written letters, organised events, made interventions, given speeches and secured debates urging successive Governments to invest in carbon capture technology and sites. I have campaigned vigorously for carbon capture to be taken seriously by politicians. Like those in the industry, I was devastated when, in 2015, the then Chancellor, George Osborne—without warning—pulled more than £900 million of funding, halting at a stroke two major projects instantaneously. It was a bad day for the industry and there is some way to go to make up that lost time. I only hope the funding this time will see the cash actually spent before the Chancellor thinks it would be easy pickings for a future cut.

I am really grateful that we are now seeing progress and it appears that we may even be seeing some infrastructure benefits for the Tees valley too, but some of the announcements by the Tees Mayor seem a little wide of the mark. After the Budget, he claimed to have delivered a free port for the Tees, yet there is no mention of it in the Red Book and, as I understand it, there has been no announcement from the Government. Perhaps the Minister can confirm the Mayor’s claim. The same Mayor has also claimed that he secured £80 million for Darlington station. Perhaps the Minister can tell me where I can find that cash in the Red Book or even in the rail network enhancement programme. It is simply not there, so will the Government confirm that the £80 million is actually ready to spend in Darlington?

After 10 years of austerity and a severe lack of ambition, the Budget comes nowhere near to making up for past cuts. The Chancellor was throwing money around like confetti, but, with no real tax increases and a downturn in the economy, it begs the question: where is the cash coming from? Perhaps he has not had time to cost it yet; we always cost our Budgets.

The Budget has done nothing for the chemical industries on Teesside, where companies are still nervous, as there is no provision for the increased costs these firms will face due to the uncertainty over the REACH regulations. I appreciate Ministers taking the time to meet me and organisations concerned about future regulations, but it is now time for them to step up and take the action the chemical industries are asking them to take to secure the future of their businesses.

It is not just industry that is worried and under pressure; our public services are, too. I hope that this country pulls through this crisis and that the Government start to truly recognise the impact that health cuts can have because, by the time the crisis comes around, it is too late to restore what has been cut overnight. Perhaps the shortage of ventilators is one of the best examples of the resources in the NHS falling short, and it is in the lives of people that we will pay the price. It is in areas such as mine, where some wards are among those with the lowest life expectancy in the country, that people will be most vulnerable to the coronavirus. As I said in my intervention, I was grateful to the Minister for Health for listening to the case for a new hospital in Stockton—a 21st-century hospital—to address the huge health issues in my community. Since the new hospital was cancelled by the then Tory-Lib Dem coalition in 2010, I have spoken about the need for it in every single Budget debate since. I am pleased that at last we have taken even a tiny step forward, so I thank the Minister.

However, it is not just about hospitals; as others have said, this Budget has also failed to deliver on social care. In the context of our current situation, in which covid-19 is more dangerous for older people, this seems to be an even more severe mistake. What is happening when careworkers come down ill, are self-isolating, at best, and older people in need of those carers are left alone? How are the Government prepared for this particular part of the crisis? Simply put, what the Budget has done is to highlight the inadequacy of our welfare state. It has proven that our safety net is not fit for purpose. We should not simply do and be better now that we are facing a crisis. If we can make procedures and processes more quickly and streamline now, there is no reason why that could not have happened before.

I continue to be concerned about the lack of action this Government have taken for those on lower incomes. I agree with the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers when it says that the Budget does not address working family poverty. This was the year by which child poverty was due to have been eradicated, and the lack of mention of that in the Budget speech just proves that it is not on the Chancellor’s radar. According to the North East Child Poverty Commission, almost 210,000 children in the north-east are growing up poor. The Budget did nothing for them. I also back the call from USDAW—I am not a member of the trade union—for the two-child limit to be scrapped and the five-week wait period for universal credit to be shortened. That has been echoed by Macmillan Cancer Support. Many people with cancer have to give up work directly because of their illness and it is unacceptable that they have to wait five weeks for their initial payment. It is inhumane and it should never have been part of Government policy.

Inequality in our country continues to grow, yet we see no real intent from the Government to close the gap and it is the people in areas such as mine that will lose out once again. That is why our new hospital is so important. I do not feel that the Budget is fit to address the problems we face as a society, and certainly not on Teesside.

British Bioethanol Industry

Alex Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing the debate, and it is lovely to be in the Chamber to see three Labour Teesside MPs, as well as other Labour colleagues, leading the charge for farmers and of course jobs.

We have already heard that the bioethanol industry is worth about £1.5 billion to the UK economy annually and supports 6,000 jobs, including apprentices and graduate programmes. However, the industry has been hit by job losses. I will highlight briefly that measures can be taken—the Minister has already heard what they are—to protect jobs and to help growth in the industry, creating future jobs and helping my constituency.

I am sure fellow Members are aware of the thousands of jobs that have been lost around the country by the recent closure of Vivergo and the cuts at Ensus. Northern towns have been hit hardest by the closures, including my area. However, bioethanol is used in making E10 petrol, and legislating for the mandatory introduction of E10 would create jobs. It would also put stability into some of our communities where energy companies are based and be hugely beneficial for the environment. Indeed, many of my constituents have contacted me. Bioethanol is the last thing I expected my constituents to contact me about, but many of them did and they asked me to speak on their behalf today.

[Nic Dakin]

It was a nice change.

[Alex Cunningham]

It was indeed—better than Brexit.

As we have already heard, legislating for E10 would bring us into line with other European countries, including Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and other countries much further afield such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Others have talked about the advantages of E10, which are numerous and clear and have been outlined very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe. I will reiterate some of the things he said.

Transport is the biggest offender when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, contributing 28% of the UK’s total, but that figure can easily be reduced. With regards to emissions, in 2013, the use of biofuels was equivalent to taking hundreds of thousands of cars—some say as many as 1.35 million—off the road, and it is predicted that many more could come off the road as well.

E10 produces fewer carcinogens, lower particulate matter and fewer nitrogen oxides, and helps to improve air quality. The public health benefits are massive. All those things have a direct impact on my constituency, where there are seven farms. When people think of my constituency, they see industry and pipes and things, but it is quite rural and seven of my farms—I do not own them personally—sold their wheat to the Vivergo plant, which produced bioethanol, but has closed. The farmers were paid a £10 a tonne premium compared with what they would have got on the export market, so many of my constituents are losing money from the industry’s decline. They have to find new markets abroad, which are generally less stable for them because of currency fluctuations—we have had plenty of them of late—demand, and even Brexit.

The Navigator Seal Sands storage facility, where Ensus stores and redelivers its ethanol, is also in Stockton North, as are Intertek Cargo and analytical assessment branches that provide services to Ensus. In the neighbouring constituency of Middlesbrough, Stockton North employees are employed by a logistics organisation, AV Dawson, which provides supply chain services for the industry. So the people I represent have quite a stake in any decision by the Government to move to E10 and allow that industry to be redeveloped, with a tremendously positive impact on jobs and farmers’ income.

Mandating the use of E10, as we have already been told, would help us fulfil our commitment to the Climate Change Act 2008, in which the UK led the way in a legally binding 2050 target to reduce emissions by at least 80%. Furthermore, the EU renewable energy directive set a target for the UK to produce 15% of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

The Government launched a consultation on E10 last summer and evidence was submitted on whether and how to best introduce E10 petrol. However, the consultation ended four months ago and still the Government have not stated whether they will support it. The perception is that the Government have been dragging their feet on this issue. For me, implementation of E10 is a no-brainer, as it is for others. Support for fuel with a higher bioethanol content is widespread, from farmers and car manufacturers to environmental campaigners and motorists. It is a puzzle to me why the Government have not made it mandatory at UK pumps before now.

The National Farmers Union also supports the call for E10 as it provides vital opportunities for thousands of farmers, including the seven in my constituency. Without the bioethanol industry, farmers who sell crops for bioethanol production would be forced to export their crops and they would lose, as I said earlier, £10 a tonne if they did that. There are plenty of reasons for the Government to stop dragging their feet and make a positive decision to benefit people in my constituency and further afield, and hundreds of jobs could be created in my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I too congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on bringing forward the debate, as well as on his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British bioethanol. He has campaigned on the issue for a long time, and I commend him for that work.

The debate is clearly important for many hon. Members, given today’s turnout and considering everything else that is going on. There is a big debate on the motion of no confidence in the UK Government, yet six Members have intervened and there have been five Back-Bench speeches. That is testament to the importance of the subject and the Minister needs to take heed of that. I note that the six Members who intervened have not hung around to hear the Front-Bench speeches—perhaps I am not a draw in this debate—but they got their points on the record.

The hon. Member for Scunthorpe highlighted the critical state of the industry—the partial collapse that has already happened, the job losses to date, and the fact that it is four years since the Government seemed to be going down the route of making E10 mandatory. Obviously, real frustrations come with that situation. He made an excellent opening speech and raised the key issues. In discussing concerns about the effect on cars, he highlighted the fact that only 5% of cars now on the road are likely to have issues with E10, and confirmed that E5 would not have to be phased out but could remain as a fuel for classic cars. I like the suggestion that tax measures could be used to offset costs for people who might be affected. Considering how we treat classic cars for tax purposes at present, that seems a reasonable suggestion.

As always, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). All the other Members who spoke concentrated on direct jobs, but he focused on farming and the benefits to be gained for all. I do not think anyone could argue with that philosophy. The hon. Members for Stockton South (Dr Williams), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Redcar (Anna Turley)—it is not the first time I have seen the Teesside Collective in action—rightly spoke about jobs in their constituencies, how important the financial hit taken by those constituencies is, and what it means for the wider UK economy. The hon. Member for Redcar mentioned that the area has suffered other job losses, and that it cannot afford to continue to suffer such losses. That is something else that the Minister needs to consider.

[Alex Cunningham]

The way we understand the Teesside Collective—besides as my colleagues and myself—is as the organisation that has led the way on carbon capture and storage on Teesside. Of course we are hopeful that there will be an amazing plant there. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in commending the collective for the work it has done to secure the plant for Teesside?

[Alan Brown]

I am more than happy to commend it for that. It is important work on an important environmental issue. When we think about it, that is what we are considering—environmental improvements with E10. Carbon capture and storage would certainly do likewise, and I hope that the work will reach its conclusion.

I am a member of the all-party British bioethanol group and have signed the pledge on E10. I urge any hon. Members who have not yet signed it to do so, and to show cross-party support. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe, talking about the future of the bioethanol industry, highlighted the critical stage that things have reached. We have heard about the job losses to date. Government action is required. It could be argued that there is an issue of vested business interests when the bioethanol industry campaigns for mandatory E10. However, as other hon. Members have pointed out, there are clear merits in the E10 proposals, so it makes no sense that the UK Government have been dragging their heels. I hope that the Minister will tell us today why they have done that so far, and what they will do to move things forward positively. She has listened to the speeches, but have she or the Government estimated how many jobs are at stake? How many could be created if Ensus were to get back up and running, and what would the long-term future be with respect to developing mandatory E10?

Transport accounts for approximately a quarter of energy demand, but it lags behind other energy sectors in carbon reduction measures. The bioethanol industry estimates that the introduction of E10 would deliver something equivalent to taking 700,000 cars off the roads, although, interestingly, the hon. Member for Stockton North gave an upper estimate of 1.35 million cars. Have the UK Government done any analysis of what introducing E10 would equate to, in relation to carbon reduction measures?

The hon. Member for Stockton North highlighted the fact that bioethanol blended with petrol reduces carcinogens and particulate matter and can reduce nitrogen oxide emissions, and commented on what that means for air quality. As a doctor, the hon. Member for Stockton South highlighted the medical issues associated with air quality, and we now know that 40,000 premature deaths a year arise from air quality issues. The UK Government have lost in the High Court three times in proceedings about their air quality plan, so what consideration have they given to the air quality benefits and the long-term impact on health of the mandatory introduction of E10?

Has the Minister considered the benefits of E10 that other countries have assessed? It accounts for 95% of petrol sales in the US and is the biggest selling petrol fuel in France, Belgium, Australia and Canada, among others, so it is commonplace in all the other developed countries. Why is the UK lagging behind? Cars are now designed to run on E10, so new cars running on E5 are running inefficiently. Why would we want that? It means greater fuel use and greater emissions. Let us get E10 and make today’s cars more efficient.

The Government may see electric vehicles as a decarbonisation silver bullet but, given that average sales of those vehicles still hover around the 1% bracket, we are a long way from the critical mass of electrical vehicle use that would make a huge difference to carbon reduction. If the Government will not invest enough to get electric vehicle uptake to that critical mass, they need to consider such transitional decarbonisation measures as mandatory E10 and liquefied petroleum gas.

One welcome UK Government measure is the staged increase in the renewable transport fuel obligation from 4.75% to 8.5%, from this month. It is therefore counterintuitive for them not to introduce E10 as a mandatory measure. I would like the Minister to comment on what seems to be disjointed thinking, and what the Department for Transport will do to rectify it.

Hon. Members have talked about the importance of E10 for jobs, air quality and the environment. Why would we want to rely on imports of biofuels in the future, when we could have a fantastic industry in the UK? I make the same plea that everyone else has made, to bring forward E10 as a mandatory measure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

That is an interesting way of responding to how the business environment is dealing with global issues beyond what the Government may or may not have intended to do, so I do not accept that point.

It is clear that UK producers of bioethanol from wheat have faced challenging market conditions, due in part to high wheat prices following a hot summer, and a low bioethanol price—that may in some way answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. However, it is by no means clear that an E10 mandate would address all the challenges that the UK bioethanol industry has faced. It is also clear that the introduction of E10 is not without barriers, including the need to take into account the concerns of a significant number of owners of vehicles that are not compatible with E10—that point was raised earlier in the debate. To be successful, it is vital that any introduction of E10 is backed by fuel suppliers and consumers alike.

Since its inception, the policy on biofuels in the UK has been complex and not without controversy. Immediately after the renewable transport fuel obligation scheme—RTFO—was set in law in 2007, the Gallagher review into the indirect effects of biofuel production was published. It became clear that to maintain faith in the emissions reductions achieved and to retain consumer buy-in, we would have to address the negative indirect effects of certain biofuels. To reward fuels that may perform worse than the fossil fuels they replace would have undermined the rationale of a scheme designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It was with those challenges in mind that the Department jointly established a transport energy taskforce with the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, to consider how biofuels can contribute to meeting our climate change commitments in the context of measures introduced to address the negative indirect impacts of some biofuels.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister said a few minutes ago that some cars might not be compatible with E10 or even E5. Of course that is the case, but there are always alternatives at the petrol stations pump: diesel, fuel with bioethanol included or ordinary unleaded petrol. I cannot see that as the barrier that she described.

[Ms Ghani]

I do not think I described it as a barrier but a challenge. We must understand needs and impacts on consumers, which is why we should not rush, but ensure that what we do has a positive impact on all people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to tease out a statement from me, when he knows that he has to wait for the consultation to get the response that he wants. I thank him for his tricky intervention, but he will have to wait for the consultation response to get the answer.

The Government agree that the aim must be to reduce emissions and that low carbon fuels must play a part. The regulations made last year introduced a greenhouse gas reduction obligation on suppliers and incentives for the development of fuels capable of delivering higher greenhouse gas emissions reductions. These allow us to reward low carbon fuels because of the emissions reductions they deliver. We have also made £20 million of match capital funding available under the future fuels for freight and flight competition. In the wider context, the Government have recently published two major strategies focused on combating climate change and improving the UK’s air quality. Our Road to Zero strategy sets out a clear pathway to zero emissions vehicles by 2050, and this week we have published our clean air strategy. The pathway is not just about driver behaviour and electrification. Low-carbon fuels will continue to play a vital role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the vehicle fleet.

The renewable transport fuel obligation, as amended last year, is expected to save nearly 85 million tonnes of CO₂ over the 15-year period from 2018, which represents around a third of transport’s projected contribution to UK carbon budget savings during the 2020s. In achieving those savings there is an opportunity to increase the amount of bioethanol in petrol, from 5% today up to 10%.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Under-Secretary is doing a grand job stonewalling on behalf of the Minister of State. If there is one message that we would ask to be taken back, it is that we desperately need a date and we need that certainty. Will she commit to go to the Minister and say, “Look, these guys are going to bash your door down if you do not actually make a decision and make it soon”?

[Ms Ghani]

I believe that the door has already been bashed down, because a meeting is set in the diary.