Wagner Group: Sanctions Regime

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

The message to Ukraine is that this is a country that believes in the rule of law and democracy. That is why we support Ukraine. That is why the Prime Minister was in Ukraine recently, confirming that we will do everything possible to support them. That is why this country has made a greater contribution to support the brave people of Ukraine than any other country, bar the United States.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I do not know if the Minister has had the chance to read Oliver Bullough’s book “Butler to the World”. There is a copy in the Library if he has not. I recommend it to him because it lays clear Britain’s role in facilitating this kind of lawfare. Oliver Bullough has asked:

“What chance have British journalists got when even our own government is prepared to roll the pitch for oligarchs keen to sue us?”

[James Cartlidge]

I repeat my earlier point about the actions we are taking on SLAPPs. We have already had the call for evidence and we will bring forward primary legislation.

Non-domestic Energy Support

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

On the point of going under as a result of the delayed announcement of the results of the review, we were due to announce on the last sitting day before recess, and we have announced on the first sitting day—it is a delay, but not a huge one. In that time, those businesses, whatever they are, will have been benefiting from the current support running until the end of March. We have now given them certainty for the next 12 months with a scheme that remains generous and universal. It is not as generous as before but I can confirm that it will include the sub-post office.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Minister seems to be missing the point. Many businesses I speak to are now locked into impossibly expensive contracts. They have no choice. That is not just the cost per unit but the standing charges that they are asked to pay. The best deal that the charity Toryglen Community Base in my constituency could get was to go from £9 k a year to £62 k a year. The food manufacturer Calder Millerfield is paying six times more now than it was before—that is what it has been offered with the Government support at its current rate. Many small businesses and hospitality businesses in Glasgow Central are facing the same. What will the Minister do about these hopelessly expensive contracts that businesses are being locked into now at these high prices? What negotiation is he doing with the energy companies to bring those prices down? They will push businesses under more than anything else.

[James Cartlidge]

I was absolutely clear in my statement that the precise reason that we are continuing the universal support is for those very companies, charities or other public sector organisations that fixed while prices were higher and have since reduced. We have precisely those companies in mind, but it is also for those companies that may currently be on a lower tariff that is about to finish, who had a long-term fix from some years ago when energy was much cheaper. The point is that it is another 12 months of security. It is right that it is not as generous as it was, but when speaking to stakeholders there was no expectation that a Government would continue a level of support costing £18 billion for six months. That is a very expensive intervention. This remains a significant intervention and will remain generous for charities, businesses and public sector institutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

In my statement yesterday I not only confirmed a six-month extension of the alcohol duty freeze, but announced that next August we will introduce an ambitious reform package which will include—this is happening for the first time ever, and is only possible because of our departure from the European Union— a duty rate differential between what is on tap, namely draught beer, cider and so on, and what is in the supermarkets. That will create a level playing field which I think is in the best interests of our pubs.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Asylum seekers, who are at the very sharpest end of the cost of living crisis, have seen only a 13p increase in asylum support payments. Will the Chancellor uprate that? It should not fall to brilliant charities like Refuweegee to ensure that asylum seekers get a Christmas this year.

[John Glen]

I think that communities up and down the country are doing amazing work to support, in particular, the Ukrainian visitors who came here this year at very short notice. We have just agreed a new package of support with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which gives guarantees going forward into next year.

Russia: UK Companies

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is for good reason that we do not entertain specific discussions on individual companies and their commercial interests, but we have been very clear on the need to divest. We have an outright ban on investment in Russia, and I sincerely hope that companies are not abusing that. I am not going to suggest that the companies he mentioned are doing so or comment on those specific cases, but I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend, or receive correspondence from him, if he has concerns in that regard.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It seems to me to ring a little bit hollow to say that companies are still trying to unwind their various operations in Russia. If some companies can do that quite easily, can the Minister explain to me why companies such as Infosys are still working in Russia?

[James Cartlidge]

As I said to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—I apologise if this becomes a relatively repetitive point—I am not going to comment on specific individual companies. As I say, there is very good reason for that, and it is a long-standing Treasury policy that I think any Government would follow.

We have set out our policy. In my opening answer to the right hon. Member for Barking, I read out the statement from the Prime Minister when he was the Chancellor. We have been very clear that we want to see companies divesting from Russia. There are some complexities in there—of course there are—but the direction of travel is very clear.

Finance Bill

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who gave a characteristically thoughtful speech. How strange it is that we agree on so many things in this debate, and yet on so few other things. It would be nice if those on the Government Front Bench listened to some of the considered and sensible remarks from their colleagues.

This Finance Bill really does illustrate that we are all having to pay more tax, because of the very misguided steps taken by the former Prime Minister and her Chancellor, who crashed the economy in 26 minutes, leaving us all £30 billion worse off. That will have an impact on this broken UK economy not just now, but for many years to come.

Let me start with the energy profits levy. That additional tax on UK oil and gas profits will increase from 25% to 35% from 1 January 2023. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley observed, this is being extended until March 2028, which illustrates the extent of the mess into which the UK Government and their Chancellors have got themselves.

We think that the Government should go in a slightly different direction. They should look beyond just a levy on energy profits. They might want to look at a windfall tax that includes share buybacks as well. That is something that Biden has done in the United States. That has had the effect of bringing more money into the American Treasury’s coffers—Canada is also doing this—and encouraging firms to put more money into research and development, into investing in their companies and into investing in the UK, rather than spending all their excess profits on share buybacks, That seems like an entirely sensible thing to do, given the state of the UK economy. This year, BP has earmarked £7.15 billion to buy back its own shares. The Treasury should look at what more can be done here.

The reduction in the investment allowance is to be welcomed, but that it exists at all remains a barrier to decarbonisation. The allowance creates a perverse incentive for companies to favour new oil and gas exploration over renewables by effectively offering them a tax break for doing so. Shell paid zero windfall tax under the previous scheme, as it invested heavily in oil and drilling instead of filing profits to be taxed against. That is hardly worth a candle compared with the net zero commitments that the Government tried to make at COP26 last year.

We are also concerned about the decision to impose a 45% tax on electricity generators as that can then undermine investment into renewables at the same time as allowing oil and gas companies to drill more. The chief operating officer of SSE has said that the company may have to “give up” on some of its plans when the tax comes into effect. He said:

“It’s going to take money away from us…and we won’t have as much to invest.”

The CEO of Renewable UK also said:

“Any new tax should have focused on large, unexpected windfalls right across the energy sector, instead profits at fossil fuel plants are inexplicably exempted from the levy.”

Scotland has a significant renewables sector. It has been a great success story. Anything that makes that sector less profitable and more uncertain is something that we are deeply worried about.

The ordinary rate of income tax is now frozen until April 2028. Significant stealth taxes are coming in, as the Treasury stands to raise considerable revenue due to inflation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that this could raise £30 billion by 2026 due to high inflation rates. It is unacceptable for this money to be raised by taxing those already struggling with spiralling living costs. Of the many options available to the Chancellor, it would have been better to tip the balance more in favour of those who can afford to contribute more, by which I mean greater taxes on wealth and income made from wealth, and also taxes on the non-doms, which could bring in £3.2 billion to the Treasury’s coffers. It is unacceptable that the Treasury would turn down the chance to bring in £3.2 billion and instead choose to freeze the thresholds, so that people on lower and middle incomes will receive less in their pay packet each month.

AJ Bell has found that if allowances are frozen rather than linked to inflation, an average earner on a salary of £33,000 in 2021-22, before the income tax threshold freeze began, will end up paying £2,600 more in income tax if the policy is extended to 2027-28. Someone on £50,000 will pay an additional £6,570 in tax because the allowances are frozen rather than being linked to inflation. I ask Ministers to consider the fairness of those measures.

Moving on to the research and development expenditure tax credit rate, the scheme has provided tax reliefs to companies subject to corporation tax that carry out eligible R&D activities. I appreciate what has been said about the efficacy of R&D tax credits and whether they are useful. I hope that topic will receive more consideration in the months and years ahead, because the UK tax code is full of different types of credits, tax breaks and incentives—or disincentives—and we need to properly understand how effective they are.

Small and medium-sized enterprises provide around three fifths of the UK’s private sector jobs and have historically been drivers of innovation and growth. They are a significant part of solving the UK’s productivity puzzle. SMEs are less likely than larger companies to have access to formal credits to fund R&D, and in the wake of the pandemic and with recession forecast across the next year, it is more important than ever that SMEs are supported in driving growth and investing in research and development.

It is quite perplexing the Chancellor has prioritised R&D in larger firms, which are more likely to invest their profits elsewhere or perhaps invest them in share buybacks further down the road. The Chancellor has said that the aim is to reduce fraud, but reducing the R&D expenditure credit for all SMEs in an attempt to prevent its being abused seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is quite poor targeting to affect all SMEs rather than just those that might be abusing the system.

The Federation of Small Businesses has said that the cut to R&D tax credits, which the Government presented as a way of tackling fraud, would “crush innovation and growth”, creating a “doom loop” that

“makes a mockery of plans for growth.”

The Minister should listen carefully to the FSB when it raises such concerns.

The current situation is quite worrying and will have significant impacts on the Scottish budget. The Fraser of Allander Institute has said:

“The lack of any real ability on the part of the Scottish government to be able to flex its budget within year in response to unanticipated shocks remains a real limitation of the existing fiscal settlement…a strong case can be made for enhancing the Scottish government’s ability to borrow and/or draw down resources from its Reserve.”

It concludes that

“this level of inflexibility does not seem tenable.”

The Scottish Government face a £1.7 billion shortfall this year as a result of inflationary pressures, and that is just this year’s budget. John Swinney has gone back and tried to strip out anything he can from the Scottish budget to try and deal with the problem, but that shortfall remains. The Chancellor’s answer to that was £1.5 billion in Barnett consequentials over the next two years—nothing for this in-year shortfall and half of what we need across two years. That is not going to fix the pressures that the Scottish Government face. It is not going to fix the significant issues with pay deals that trade unions are legitimately asking for in Scotland to support their members. If the UK Government does not come up with that money, it will cause extreme difficulties for the Scottish Government’s ability to meet their expectations of what they want to do.

What we are seeing from the UK Government is something of a doom loop. The OECD says that the UK will contract more than any other G7 country and that, of the G20, only Russia will fare worse than the UK. We see stagnant growth and no plans to get the economy back on track. The Chancellor and the Government want to bring forward plans to try to cut their way out of recession. That will not work. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley pointed out, consumers see that, and it affects both consumer and business confidence. Unless we hear a lot more about investment rather than cuts, this Government are going to sink the economy and take Scotland down with them.

Autumn Statement

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Alison Thewliss.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The current Chancellor comes here today as the seventh Chancellor in seven years, and a mere 55 days after the last Chancellor came to this House to present his chaotic mini-Budget. His predecessor managed to crash the economy in 26 minutes; this Chancellor has spent the past 53 minutes trying to patch up those mistakes. The reality is that we will all be living with the disastrous consequences of Trussonomics for some time to come.

The Chancellor has brought forward new targets because he is failing to meet the old ones. His difficult choices are of nothing compared with what many of our constituents face. The Tories spent the summer squabbling in a leadership contest when they should have been preparing for the difficult winter ahead. Now the UK is £30 billion worse off because of the incompetence of the Conservative party. Scotland is paying a heavy price indeed for being in this Union.

The Tories are attempting to cut their way out of a recession. It will not work. Public sector workers deserve a proper pay rise to face the cost of living crisis that the Tories have created, and the Scottish Government do not have the same flexibility as this Chancellor to borrow or make changes in-year. Their existing budgets have already been squeezed and reprioritised and there is nothing left to cut.

The Chancellor says Scotland will get £1.5 billion in Barnett consequentials, yet the Scottish Government’s budget is worth £1.7 billion less than when it was introduced last December. Scotland is being short-changed yet again. Will he listen carefully to what John Swinney has asked for and provide the funding Scotland deserves?

The Chancellor is proposing fiscal tightening on a scale not seen since George Osborne—and we are still living with the real consequences of those poverty-inducing policies: the two-child limit, the rape clause, the brutal benefits sanctions. The Glasgow Centre for Population Health has been clear that the previous round of Tory austerity caused 330,000 excess deaths. More of the same from this Chancellor is a price society cannot afford.

Restoring the triple lock and uprating benefits by inflation is not some victory to be celebrated. Barnardo’s has described it as a “minimum first step”. The rate of inflation announced by the Chancellor is not the actual rate of inflation now—nor, perhaps, will it be the rate of inflation by the time the measure comes into force. Again, the Government are not keeping step with the cost of living. Any compassionate Government with an ounce of humanity would not have to be dragged to make such a decision.

The Chancellor talks about uprating the benefit cap—he should scrap the benefit cap. In Scotland, we have introduced the groundbreaking Scottish child payment and increased it to £25 per child per week, now up to the age of 16. There is no two-child limit in Scotland, because we value every child and want them all to have the best future. Will he commit to the same?

The Chancellor mentioned nothing in his statement for those struggling on no recourse to public funds, and nothing either for asylum seekers trying to survive on just 40 quid a week. Will he increase that support or, better yet, allow them to work and to contribute, as so many want to do?

Inflation is running at 11.1%, a 41-year high. For those in lower-income households, the Resolution Foundation says it runs at 12.5%, as more of their income goes on the essentials. The price of food is up 16.4% in a year, with basics such as bread, milk and pasta all increasing and squeezing household budgets. Combining that with the soaring cost of energy, households are finding it impossible to make ends meet.

Cornwall Insight has estimated that the energy price cap next year may come in at an eye-watering £3,702. I appreciate what the Chancellor has said about energy support, but his energy support package must be wider and deeper. It must lift those who are stuck on prepayment meters and make sure they can turn the heating on. Will he listen to National Energy Action, which is calling for a targeted energy price guarantee, similar to a social tariff, set at £1,500 annually until October 2024?

National Energy Action says that should be for all households on means-tested benefits and disability benefits, those in receipt of attendance allowance and carers allowance and those who are living on less than two thirds of the median household income, and it should be targeted to people living in areas of multiple deprivation. We all know that energy bills will not be reducing any time soon. The Chancellor must ensure that people get the help they need to stay safe and warm.

Insulation schemes should have happened already. The UK Government cut back dramatically on schemes while the Scottish Government invested. More than 100,000 homes in Scotland have been made more energy efficient, while the UK Government have ignored the problem. Now they say, “Wait until 2025.” It is not even jam tomorrow; it is, “Huddle under a blanket for three years until we get to you.” It is absolutely ludicrous.

Will the Chancellor consider not a rent cap, but a rent freeze to help renters, as the Scottish Government have done? For those struggling with their mortgages, will he do all he can to encourage banks to support their customers, and will he fix and expand the restrictive support for mortgage interest scheme, to make it more accessible to those who need it?

There is little in this statement to give hope to businesses. Many that managed to survive the pandemic are now struggling to keep going. Increased labour and energy costs, supply chain difficulties and the crash in the pound have all made a difficult situation so much worse.

I have raised many times in this place the impossibly high contracts that companies are having to sign for their energy bills right now, and the Chancellor was not at all clear how he expects them to keep going once the reprieve finishes in the spring. Companies cannot wait any longer for answers, because for too many it will be too much. We know insolvencies are already on the rise, and with companies going bust, rising unemployment will inevitably follow.

We know that recession has a bigger impact on younger workers. When we look at the Chancellor’s statement, the minimum wage rates are still lagging behind for younger workers. They are being discriminated against on the basis of their age, and that continues to be unacceptable.

There was also nothing in the Chancellor’s statement about carbon capture and storage in the north-east of Scotland. Why not? There was a 45% hike on electricity generators—more than on oil and gas—which will hammer Scotland’s renewables sector.

I will give the Chancellor some opportunities to bring some cash into the UK Government’s coffers. The London School of Economics says that ending the non-dom status could bring in £3.2 billion of additional tax. Taxing dividends at the same rate as income from work would stand to raise more than £6 billion a year.

For some time now, big companies have been engaging in significant share buybacks. Oil and gas, financial services and other companies are using share buybacks because their mega-profits are more than they know what to do with. Those profits are not being invested in new development; they are simply being creamed off. It is estimated that FTSE 100 firms are now due to return £55.5 billion to their shareholders via share buybacks this year.

The Institute for Public Policy Research estimates that a one-off 25% windfall tax on share buybacks of FTSE-listed companies could raise £11 billion in a single year. Even if companies were discouraged from buying back shares under the scheme, it would lead to higher reinvestment in development rather than profits. Why would the Chancellor pass up such an economic opportunity?

The Chancellor should also grow the tax base by increasing immigration and improving the lot of those who have already done us the significant honour of coming to live, work and study in our communities. We should thank them, not tell them they are not welcome. It is beyond time that the UK had a sensible, grown-up conversation about immigration. We on the SNP Benches are clear that immigration is an economic good. The OBR forecasts that higher net migration reduces pressures on Government debt over time. The Chancellor should consider that.

Finally, I come to the policy that unites all the Unionist parties in this House: Brexit. The Tories, Labour, the Lib Dems—all Brexiteers now, fully committed to this futile project of deliberate self-destruction. Dr Swati Dhingra of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee told the Treasury Committee yesterday:

“It’s undeniable now that we’re seeing a much bigger slowdown in trade in the UK”

than in the rest of the world. Wages are lower, business investment is lower, and the UK is underperforming in both imports and exports. That political choice has brought us here today, to the Chancellor’s decisions, which will affect us all but will hit the least well off the very hardest.

The economist Michael Saunders said this week:

“If we hadn’t had Brexit, we probably wouldn’t be talking about an austerity budget”.

Put that on the side of a bus.

Scotland did not vote for this. We did not choose austerity and we did not choose Brexit. The OBR says that living standards are to fall by 7% over the next two years. It ought to be of no surprise to anybody that just shy of half of Scots think the UK will not exist in its current form in the next five years. This is a UK so weak that no one would wish to join it. Scotland cannot be forced to stay in broke, broken Brexit Britain.

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. She is complaining about economic instability damaging business in Scotland, but she supports the most destabilising policy of all: separation from the United Kingdom. She complained about Brexit, but 1 million voters in Scotland voted for Brexit, and we are implementing the will of the British people. Behind the sparring in this House, we actually have very good relations with the Scottish Government. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already met John Swinney, the Finance Minister, and we have good co-operation.

I need to correct the hon. Lady on one point. She said that we are not investing in energy efficiency. What I said—if she listened to my words—is that in this Parliament we are spending £6.6 billion in energy efficiency, and a further £6 billion from 2025. I understand that separation means more to her than anything else in politics, but families in Scotland heard other things today. They heard about the £600 million for the Scottish NHS, £385 million for schools and more than £4 billion to help Scottish families with their energy bills, on top of £4 billion to build the latest frigates. That is because we are more than neighbours; we are family, and Conservatives always back families.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Alison Thewliss.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I welcome this latest Chancellor to his place. Many of our constituents, such as my constituent Angela, have seen their bills double. Angela’s gas bill has gone up from £130 to £260 a month. She lives in a tiny, two-bedroom flat on carer’s allowance and personal independence payment, with a son who has a disability, and she simply cannot afford these bills. Cornwall Insight has estimated that come March, when the energy support ends, the price cap will rise to £3,700. There has been talk of targeting support after that, but National Energy Action has pointed out the risk that many people who are already suffering in fuel poverty will be excluded. What reassurance can he give people out there whose bills are already unaffordable about what will happen in March?

[Jeremy Hunt]

I want to reassure the hon. Lady. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury spoke to John Swinney, the Scottish Finance Minister, yesterday. We are thinking very carefully about all these issues, but to correct any misunderstanding, let me add that the energy price support that we give to families will not end next April, and I will announce on Thursday what that support will be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call SNP spokesperson, Alison Thewliss.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Austerity is a damaging Tory political choice, which is responsible for 330,000 excess deaths. A responsible and compassionate Government would explore all options to avoid it. Will the Chancellor consider taxing share buy-backs, as the US and Canada have done? The Institute for Public Policy Research and Common Wealth have pointed out that oil and gas, financial services and other companies have funnelled their mega-profits into share buy-backs. Does the Chancellor agree that that is inexcusable when he wants to hike taxes on working people and slash public services?

[Jeremy Hunt]

The hon. Member had better listen to what we say on Thursday before she jumps to conclusions. We will approach the difficult situation that we face progressively. We will ask those who have more to give more. I advise her not to talk down the financial services and energy industries, which employ thousands of people in Scotland.

Out-of-Turn Supplementary Estimates 2022-23

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is odd to be agreeing on the spending of such phenomenal amounts of money in a near-empty Chamber. It would perhaps be sensible for the House to scrutinise such matters slightly more than this, but I am sure that those of us here will do our best.

These are incredibly significant changes compared with the main estimates passed by this House just in July, and the sums of money going to the energy support package and the asset purchase facility are eyewatering. I would be interested to hear from the Minister about the relationship between the money for the asset purchase facility, and the disastrous impact of the mini-Budget, because it strikes me that all this is coming at the worst possible time. Ordinary taxpayers have been left paying the price for the UK Government’s reckless mini-Budget, with Government bonds incurring a loss for the first time since 2009. The Office for National Statistics projected the loss to taxpayers just last month at £156 million, and even with the changes that the UK Government have made since the mini-Budget and its reversal, there has been significant damage to the UK’s fiscal outlook.

What is the relationship between the intervention that the Bank of England had to make during the past couple of weeks and the interventions being paid for in these estimates? Last week, in a letter to MPs on the Treasury Committee, the Bank of England’s Deputy Governor for Financial Stability noted:

“There has been a particular increase in volatility in the UK markets…The five largest daily moves in the 30-year inflation-linked gilt, in data that dates back to 2000, have all been since the 23 September”.

That was, of course, the day of the mini-Budget, which has had a significant and long-lasting impact on the credibility of the UK Government and their ability to manage the economy. What further discussions have Ministers had with the Bank of England? The Bank was clear to the Treasury Committee that it did not have a full briefing ahead of the mini-Budget, and it told the Committee:

“Had they asked us what the market reaction would be, we would have interacted with them.”

Such interaction by the Government with experts who would have told them that their decisions were not particularly wise seems to be lacking. If there is anything to be said for the new Government, perhaps they will consult experts and listen to them more than those who are leaving the Government fairly soon.

On the energy support package, I have a lot of concern for my constituents—both businesses and individuals—come April. People who run businesses have been in touch with me. They want to know what will happen with the business support scheme come April, because as yet there has been no clarity on that from the UK Government. There has also been little clarity about what will happen for individuals. This had been talked about as a two-year support package, which gave people a sense of relief, and a sense that even if prices are higher, at least they know they will be slightly more secure. The measures that have been introduced have ripped up that guarantee entirely, and people are incredibly worried about it.

Let me give an example from my Friday surgery at Toryglen community base. Toryglen is one of the community hubs that we all depend on in our constituencies. It runs various events, is a hub for many different things, and has a nursery as part of its building. Its gas bill has gone from £9,700 a year to £62,273.36—[Interruption.] I see the Minister raising his eyebrows at that, but that is the increase. There is no way that any organisation, whether a company or a charitable organisation such as Toryglen community base, can afford that. I implore Ministers to listen to people in those circumstances, because they have to sign those contracts. If they do not, it will cost them more than the £62,000 they have been quoted. There is no alternative for them, and they do not know what will happen come April. It is irresponsible for Ministers not to give clarity to organisations in such circumstances.

The energy provider helpfully gave Toryglen community base a printout, which it passed on to me, stating that the bill is a 539% increase. Nobody can meet that. Businesses will fold and charities will not be able to provide the services that we all depend on, and I want to know the UK Government’s answer to that point. Toryglen community base was also given a quote for the following year, 2024, of £50,287.59. It is not as if prices are falling to any significant extent, and even if it survives the coming year, the bill quoted for the year afterwards is still huge, yet the energy price guarantee for businesses finishes in April. The Minister must explain what will happen to such businesses. We appreciate the cost of measures such as these, which we see in these estimates, but there will be a cost to society more broadly if all those businesses fold, charities cease to exist, and ordinary people in their homes cannot afford to put on the heating, turn on the lights and use the power on which they depend.

Thought must be given to customers who are off the gas grid and rely on heating oil. It costs more than £1,000 to fill an oil tank, often with a £500 minimum order requirement. The UK Government’s £100 of support is nowhere near adequate. Families cannot afford this. In Scotland nearly 130,000 homes rely on alternative fuels such as oil for heating their homes, and they need to know what will be coming later in the year and have certainty so that they can fill up their tanks. People are putting things on credit cards and getting into more and more debt, because they cannot afford this. There must also be some further indication about how vulnerable non-domestic customers will be identified. Again, there is little clarity on that from the UK Government. I hope there will be more, but there is not as things stand.

The eye-watering sums of money that we are talking about sound far away from people who just need an extra couple of hundred pounds to fill up a fuel tank or pay their bills. We should not, however, forget about the very real impact on businesses, charities and individuals of these huge sums of money, and of the money that we will be paying back for years because of the shambolic way the UK Government dealt with this issue. People have not voted for the chaos that there will be for many years to come or the prospect of further austerity as a result of the UK Government’s poor choices, and should not be expected to pay for it. In particular, people in Scotland are facing a higher toll in many ways, due to the cost of fuel in rural areas and unfair grid charging in Scotland. Again, the UK Government have not done anything to deal with that, and they have not decoupled the price of gas from the price of renewables. These are not choices that Scotland has made. Scotland would make different choices if we were independent, and we would ensure that nobody in Scotland went to bed cold and hungry.

[The Minister for Climate (Graham Stuart)]

I thank all Members who have spoken in this wide-ranging debate. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) spoke for His Majesty’s Opposition, and I say to him that the decision on the timing of this provision was made by the Monetary Policy Committee as part of the Bank of England. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made, as usual, the most perspicacious observations, not least about the importance of grappling with the high cost to the public purse of these interventions. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said, he was right to say that this very much depends on prices, and one hopes that we will see the costs coming in lower than in the estimate before the House.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about the impact of prices on businesses and other organisations in her constituency. She is right that these are significant prices. They are the result of global prices. She will be aware that the EU is in a similar position and is looking at how best to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices. She will doubtlessly support the elements of the Energy Prices Bill that look to decouple those prices and do everything they can to hold prices down.

The hon. Lady will also observe that the world-leading contracts for difference scheme brought in by the Government and now widely mimicked by others has provided the capital certainty to make renewables in this country investible, thus leading to the transformation of our offshore wind. Renewables have gone from, I think, a pitiful 6.8% of electricity provision when Labour left power in 2010 to more than 40% today. Contracts for difference, brought forward by the Government, have not only contributed to that, but right now we are seeing tens of millions of pounds being paid back into the pot because of their structure, thus reducing costs that businesses and consumers would otherwise see.

[Alison Thewliss]

I appreciate the points that the Minister is making about contracts for difference, but does he not agree that the grid charging regime penalises generators of offshore and onshore wind in Scotland, making it more expensive for them to generate electricity than a power station in the south-east of England?

Cost of Living: Support for Young People

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for introducing this important debate. When we talk about the cost of living crisis, the impact on young people and children often gets missed. They are an incredibly important group, and they will grow up with their life chances stunted and their health impacted if we do not consider their needs.

In preparation for this debate, I reached out to some youth groups in my constituency to ask how their young people are coping. The Urban Youth Project in Pollokshields got back to me with a response from one of its young people:

“As a student who lives on his own and has a part time job to keep food on the table, how much longer can I afford to juggle both these responsibilities? Sooner or later I’ll need to choose, do I continue with University or get a full time job? At my age (20) I should be able to study in university as I worked hard to get in.”

It is worrying that people are now choosing whether to continue their studies or give up and just work, because they are finding it hard to do both. Another young person said:

“It’s all very well budgeting for rising costs if you earn in the first place. How much higher will these costs rise? My parents are stressed, my brothers and sisters are feeling the change in spending, it’s not nice. My parents both work hard and they are talking about second jobs. Does anyone in parliament need to consider that option? Didn’t think so.”

There are choices made in this place that impact people. Many of the people making those decisions and choosing those policy routes never have to live with them. A piece of Barnardo’s research out today said that 49% of its frontline workers have supported children, young people and families who have had to choose between feeding themselves or paying their bills in the past year. That is nearly half of people facing that choice, and it is only going to get worse.

I will talk about some of the ways in which this is affecting people, and some of the choices that families in my constituency are having to make. In particular, I note a report from Migrant Voice about visa fees. For many families, each application costs £2,500 every two and a half years. If a family is having to bear that cost every two and half years, there are choices that they are not able to make for their children. One witness that Migrant Voice spoke to as part of its work said:

“I can’t feed my kids due to the visa fees and borrowing money.”

At the very least, the Government could suspend those fees for children and give folk a break, because it is really quite difficult. That is a choice that the Government have. They choose to add those costs for families as part of the immigration system. It means that those young people do not get the same choices as their peers at school. Furthermore, there could be two identical families with parents working identical jobs and children of exactly the same age, but the Government deliberately put one family at a disadvantage by giving them no recourse to public funds status. Those families are not entitled to the same benefits and they have to work twice or three times as hard to put food on the table as their neighbours. They deserve support. It is a system that is basically unfair, and I see many cases like that through my constituency office.

This situation is not news because the then UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, noted in 2019 that UK Government policy changes since 2010 were unravelling two decades of progress on child poverty. The UK now has the worst poverty and inequality levels in north-west Europe. In the UK, 11.7% of people are living below the poverty line. That is significantly higher than in countries such as Iceland at 4.9%, Denmark at 6.15% or Belgium at 8.2%. These are deliberate choices leading to deliberate impacts on people.

We did not hear much from the Government yesterday about what exactly they intend to do about this situation. We have the largest real-term cut to benefits in a single year. We have families struggling to get by on the national minimum wage, and young people are significantly disadvantaged by the way in which it is staged. An under-18 or an apprentice is entitled to only £4.81 an hour. In comparison, a 23-year-old starting the same job on the same day is entitled to £9.50 an hour. It is age discrimination baked into Government policy, and I would be interested to hear why the Minister thinks discriminating against young people in this way is justified. Universal credit also deliberately discriminates against young people, and the Government should explain why that is the case.

I could talk for a long time about the Government’s policies and the way in which they impact young people, but I want to highlight a few things that are happening in Scotland, where we have a choice and we are making a difference to the lives of young people. We have the young person’s guarantee, aiming to connect every 16 to 24-year-old in Scotland to an opportunity, which could be a job, apprenticeship, further or higher education, training programme, formal volunteering or enterprise opportunity, and that opens up opportunities to young people. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan) mentioned, we have a greater free school meal entitlement in Scotland. We provide free period products for everybody, not just young people, but certainly that will help young people setting out in the world.

We have launched free bus travel for under-22s, which approximately 930,000 young people in Scotland are entitled to. The scheme could be worth up to £3,000 for a child by the time they turn 18, opening up horizons for young people and making it easier for them to get to work or their studies and to live their lives. This is just the start. Scotland has a vision for how we want to see young people go ahead in the world. We want to be the best country for young people to grow up in. What is holding us back is Westminster. What will give us those opportunities is independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I must finish up, if I may. They will continue to do so from now until April next year. The Government have also announced £37 billion of targeted support for the cost of living this financial year.

Many young people will have benefited as their wages got a boost from the national minimum wage increase. As a result of our changes to the national minimum wage, from April 2022 people aged 21 or 22 saw a 9.8% uplift, to £9.18 an hour, while 18 to 20 year-olds received a 4.1% rise, to £6.83 an hour, and 16 to 17 year-olds had an equivalent 4.1% increase, to £4.81 an hour.

[Alison Thewliss]

rose—

[Richard Fuller]

I just have one more minute—I think that is correct.

[Richard Fuller]

In that case I would love to.

[Alison Thewliss]

Can the Minister explain why people of a younger age are not worth the same as someone older?

[Richard Fuller]

Yes I can. The fundamental point is that we are investing in young people. Many businesses wish to invest and add additional costs for training and support to tap into those skills, so that people can earn higher wages later on. It is because companies have the incentive to invest in young people that young people can then earn more. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but she should recognise that the national minimum wage is not a cap on what people can be paid but a floor. If companies invest in young people to get those skills, they can earn more.

Our youth offer provides guaranteed foundation support to young people searching for work on universal credit. That includes 13 weeks of intensive support to help new claimants into suitable opportunities and provision. Youth hubs are co-delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions and local partners, and youth employability coaches are available for those with complex needs.

We will always encourage labour market participation and make it pay to work. Through universal credit, the Government have designed a modern benefits system that ensures that it always pays to work and that withdraws support gradually as claimants move into work, replacing the old legacy system, which applied effective tax rates of more than 90% to low earners.

Questions were raised by the hon. Member for Bath about free school meals and breakfast clubs. The Government spent more than £1 billion on delivering free school meals to pupils in schools. Around 1.9 million disadvantaged pupils are eligible for free school meals, as well as an additional 1.25 million infants who receive a free meal under the universal infant school meal policy. The Government are also providing an additional £500 million toward the cost of extension, which has come via a six-month extension to the household support fund.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East talked about breakfast clubs. The Government are providing over £2 million a year to continue the holiday activities and food programme, which provides free holiday club places to children from low-income families. The Government are providing £24 million over two years for the national breakfast club programme, benefitting up to 2,500 schools.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central and others asked questions about support for university students. He may know that the Government have increased maintenance loans every year, meaning that disadvantaged students now have access to the highest ever amounts in cash terms. He may know that the Government have made £260 million available through the Office for Students, which universities can use to boost their own hardship funds. He may know that many students also benefit from the wider package of cost of living support, and he will know that maximum tuition fees will be frozen until 2025. He mentioned one particular idea on thresholds, which I would be grateful if he could write to me about.

Economic Update

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] I see that the Prime Minister has urgently run off to something else rather than stay to listen.

When the previous Chancellor came to give his mini Budget three long weeks ago, I called it economic chaos. What an understatement that turned out to be. I am not sure that words have yet been invented to describe the scale of unmitigated disaster which the Prime Minister and her Chancellors have created in the past 24 days. We are back where we started but significantly worse off due to Tory incompetence. Is it not just as well that, in Scotland, the Scottish Government did not take Tory MPs’ advice to copy and paste from here before Government Front Benchers delete all? People will be paying the price for many years to come through higher interest and borrowing rates. Will the Chancellor apologise for the increased costs that his colleagues have inflicted on people? He has not been clear at all, so will he confirm the status of the bankers’ bonus cap—has it been scrapped or not?

There is little by way of detail from the current Chancellor about doubling down on austerity and what that will mean for people. However, the Institute for Government and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy have been clear that there is no fat left to cut after a lost decade for public services under the Tories. Where does the current Chancellor expect to make these cuts or “efficiency savings”? We know what he means when he says that. We already know the terrible price of austerity, because the Glasgow Centre for Population Health has attributed 330,000 excess deaths to Tory austerity policies: an unacceptable human cost. Again and again, the Tories bring forward harmful policies that they never feel the consequences of.

We know that guarantees mean nothing under the Tories, either. The so-called energy price guarantee turns out to be for six months, not two years, with a cliff edge looming next April. National Energy Action has said:

“Many vulnerable people were holding on by their fingertips. Government has to be very, very careful it doesn’t prise them away.”

Will the Chancellor tell us exactly what will happen for households in April? The scale of increases makes almost everybody vulnerable—except, perhaps, his banker pals. What will happen to the most vulnerable when inflation soars as a result of the return of spiralling energy costs?

The previous Chancellor never got round to telling me what will happen to businesses’ energy costs at the end of their six-month reprieve. Will the current Chancellor tell me what support businesses signing impossibly expensive contracts as we speak can expect? Will he, as the former, former, former Chancellor did, commit to uprating benefits with the rate of inflation? Will he also increase support for those languishing in the asylum system and end the punishing “no recourse to public funds” regime? Will he cancel the benefit cap and scrap the two-child limit, which is trapping so many children in poverty? Where is his compassion for them?

Will the Chancellor invest in renewables, carbon capture and storage, and a comprehensive energy-efficiency and insulation package? Does he really understand, when looking at broken Britain, the chaos that the Tories have wreaked and the prospect of a bleak Brexit future under both Labour and the Tories, that more and more of Scotland’s people are looking at the comprehensive independence prospectus set out by the First Minister today and moving towards the vision of a fairer, greener, more prosperous Scotland back in the heart of Europe where we belong?

[Jeremy Hunt]

It is a pleasure to exchange comments with the hon. Lady and I look forward to working with her closely in the months ahead. I remind her that this Conservative Government are spending £37 billion this year to support people across the United Kingdom with cost of living concerns. That is possible because of difficult economic decisions that the SNP has opposed at nearly every stage, and that includes large support for businesses up and down the country. The main thing I would say to her very gently is that she cannot claim to be concerned about the economic turmoil of the last few weeks when the central policy of the SNP—independence—would leave turmoil for Scotland not for a few weeks but for many, many years to come: a new currency; somehow finding a way to trade with the UK internal market but also the European single market; border checks between England and Scotland, as announced today by the First Minister; and a massive gap in public finances that would have to be breached. That is a recipe for precisely the austerity she says she is worried about. Let me say this: if we want economic stability and if Scotland wants economic stability, to coin a phrase we are stronger together.