Living Standards: East of England

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

indicated assent.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered living standards in the East of England.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. As I will be discussing nature, water and the far right, I would like to declare interests that meet the relevant test. The first is my role as vice-chair of the climate and nature crisis caucus. The second is that I have received donations from Compass and Betterworld Ltd, which have supported my work on water. The third is support I have received from the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung—try saying that after a few pints—to attend their parliamentarian forums on the far right. I have written about issues touched on in this debate—climate, water, the far right and economic growth—for The Guardian and Byline Times, which I have been paid for.

If we take an honest look at life in the east of England today, and in my city of Norwich, we do not see the prosperity that Governments have often boasted about. We see a region where too many people are running faster and faster just to stand still. In Norwich, wages remain below the national average. One in five workers earns less than the real living wage. One in six is trapped in insecure work—zero hours, agency or short-term scraps dressed up as jobs. Meanwhile, rents have risen by more than 20% since 2021. A quarter of private renters are handing over half or more of their income just to keep a roof over their heads. That is not prosperity; that is daylight robbery with a tenancy agreement.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

I also find in my constituency that the cost of a decent home is far too high for far too many of my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution to that problem is not, as is believed in some quarters, to give the developers the right to strip away our environment and destroy nature, but rather to get on with building the council housing that delivers the genuinely affordable homes our residents need?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for all his work in this area. Council homes are overwhelmingly the solution to this country’s housing problems. There is always space for private housing, for affordable housing and for housing associations, but it is council housing, built in a sustainable way, that will solve the housing crisis in this country. I agree with him that developers—not climate, nature or local democracy—are the block to building more houses here, and I am firm in making that point.

Public transport in my region is patchy at best. Broadband in rural Norfolk is slower than a tractor on a Sunday morning—people who live in Suffolk or Norfolk will know what I mean. Child poverty levels run at one in three in Norwich once housing costs are factored in and, although we are blessed with extraordinary landscapes, too many of our neighbours live in what I can only describe as nature deserts—no green space within walking distance, and no safe place for kids to play.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. He is right to underline the issue of low income; the quality of life for working families on low incomes is the worst that it has ever been. When I spoke to him beforehand, I referred to my constituency, and indeed all Northern Ireland, where I understand that the rates are the same as in his constituency: 16% of working-age adults are in relative poverty. It should never be the case that working people are in poverty. The Government need a strategy to address that issue, but they do not at present. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I do not raise this in this speech, but I think that one of the key ways of lifting people out of poverty is by strengthening trade unions and their sectoral pay bargaining ability, which I do not think even this Government—my Government—are going to do. That is key, particularly in the areas of social care and many other low-paid sectors. It would ensure that people get decent pay and attract people into those areas. It would make a massive difference.

We face real and urgent challenges in the east of England. Now, the Government—my own party’s Government—tell us not to worry, because living standards are going to rise and we have a plan for growth. But what do we mean by that? In practice, it means looking overwhelmingly at one number: disposable income, or what is left jingling in our pockets at the end of the month. Useful, yes—but adequate? No.

Reducing the richness of life to something we can measure is like trying to paint a rainbow with a single grey crayon: we get the outline, but none of the colour, none of the joy, none of the lived reality. The Indian economist and philosopher Amartya Sen warned that dignity cannot be reduced to decimal points. Martha Nussbaum, a US philosopher and ethicist, reminds us that the question is not just what we earn, but what we are free to do and to be. Kate Raworth is also right: paper prosperity that trashes the planet leaves our children bankrupt.

When we are told that living standards are up because the averages look rosy, we should remember what Danny Dorling pointed out: an average can hide a multitude of sins. If Jeff Bezos walked into a Norwich pub, the average wealth in the room would shoot through the roof, but not a single person’s pint would get cheaper—and I doubt he would get to the bar ahead of anyone else, either.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do how rural and isolated much of Norfolk can be. I represent the oldest constituency in the country, and I have been shocked by the living standards of some of my elderly residents in isolated communities, who simply feel that there is no help out there to give them the quality of life they deserve. They, too, are lost among averages. Does he agree that poverty in rural communities across the east of England is often more hidden than in metropolitan areas, and needs to receive a similar level of attention?

[Clive Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is a champion of such issues in his constituency, and I agree: poverty is very often out of sight, out of mind. The dispersal of rural poverty makes it easier to hide, and harder for organisations to point out, but he does a very good job of doing so. His point was well made.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Continuing on the theme of averages, as council areas get bigger, the averages are skewed a little. Within my area, which is already in a large unitary authority, life expectancy can vary by up to eight years. If the Government say, “Hooray! The council area is getting a Best Start family hub!”, I ask, “Where?”, because it could end up in a leafy village or in an area of deprivation. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to redouble our efforts to find pockets of deprivation, and perhaps use artificial intelligence as a new tool to do so?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for an interesting contribution. I will take a time-out on the AI component. I think it has a place and could, I am sure, contribute something, but the real way to ensure that resources are going to the right place is to ensure real devolution: empowering communities, local government and local people to decide where the money is spent, because they know best. Ultimately, pushing power down is how we will get better outcomes.

Let us be blunt: living standards as currently measured give us a snapshot, but not the whole picture. They can tell us whether the tills are ringing, but not whether the people are thriving. Look at Norwich: a zero-hours care worker has no work-life balance to speak of; they have work-life whiplash. Mental health referrals in Norfolk are up 40% since 2020—we will not find that in an Office for National Statistics income chart. The poorest wards in my city have five times fewer parks per person than the richest. Try raising kids in a concrete cage in one of the most polluted parts of the city—where, unfortunately, our Government subsidises electric SUVs that, through their brakes and tires, churn out more particulate matter than smaller electric vehicles—and then tell me that their living standards are on the rise.

Let us look at Norwich South. We had more than 500 sewage pollution incidents last year. My constituents are not comforted by fines levied on Anglian Water; their lived standard is filthy rivers, dead fish, cancelled swims and massive bill hikes, while they watch multimillion-pound payouts to shareholders and executives—and that is after the passing of our much vaunted Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. So when the Government cheer that GDP is up, or that the average household is a few pounds better off, I say, “Growth for whom? Growth for what? Growth at what cost?”

I acknowledge that this Labour Government have already taken steps to make a difference. The extended household support fund for councils, soon to be replaced by the crisis and resilience fund, has been a lifeline for many. Our new Best Start hubs, replacing the axed Sure Start programme, will help millions, as will our new universal breakfast clubs and investment in home energy efficiency, which will cut bills for years to come. Those are brilliant and welcome tangible measures, but we cannot stop there.

Too often, we give with one hand and take with the other. We extend support, but keep the two-child cap that pushes hundreds of thousands of children into poverty. We invest in households, but cut disability benefits that provide dignity and security for millions. We offer relief, but leave the structures that drive poverty and insecurity untouched.

As the charity Norfolk Community Law Service told me:

“We’re seeing a growing number of families live in extreme poverty, struggling with benefits that don’t provide enough to live on, unable to feed themselves properly or heat their homes. This is not because they are lazy or unprepared to work hard in their lives, but often because they are caught in the poverty trap, unable to break free.”

The problem is compounded by neglect of prevention. As Age UK in Norwich explained:

“The lack of strategic investment into community, preventative services is not only threatening the voluntary sector—it’s chipping away at the foundation, the NHS and social care so many rely on.”

Here is the challenge: unless we deal with those deeper structures, we will never truly lift standards in the fullest sense of the word. That means overhauling our tax system. Yes, we need higher taxes on wealth, windfalls, capital gains and inheritance, but we must also face a hard truth: without structural reform, much of that revenue simply flows straight back into the pockets of large corporates—companies that now absorb vast amounts of public money in contracts, subsidies and outsourcing while skimming billions in excess pay, dividends and profit.

Tax reform must go hand in hand with a clampdown on corporate capture. I fear that many of my colleagues now in Government understand that after 45 years of privatisation, deregulation and outsourcing, the levers of state are increasingly connected to very little. “Deliver, deliver, deliver,” we are told; but how can we deliver when the accelerator and the gearstick are connected to thin air?

Let us not forget that, when those same interests come under pressure, they rarely look in the mirror. Instead, they reach for the oldest trick in the book and tell us that the problem is not profiteering landlords or privatised monopolies. They tell us that the problem is foreigners; that migrants are the reason wages are low; that Europe is the reason services are stretched; that some other is to blame. That scapegoating is not accidental. It is structural. It protects an economy built on extraction—extraction of wealth, of labour, of nature—and it corrodes our democracy, replacing solidarity with suspicion, and common purpose with division.

Labour, at its best, has always known better. There was a time when our movement understood that redistribution of income, wealth and power was not a footnote to our mission—it was the mission. We understood that we could not simply leave the means of production, distribution and exchange in the hands of those who use them to extract, rather than to serve; that, if our economy was to work for the majority, if standards of living and wellbeing were to rise, people needed more than just money in their pocket. They needed more say, more power and more ownership over the things that make life bearable and meaningful.

That meant public ownership of essential services, from water and energy to rail and post. It meant universal basic services such as healthcare, transport, housing, education and, in our age, internet access. It meant building new institutions to strengthen the cohesion of our society: co-operatives, trade unions, community media and local assemblies. It meant giving people not only the means to live, but the means to shape the communities in which they live.

These are the specific asks I would like to put to the Minister. I ask the Government to introduce rent caps in high-pressure areas, as seen in Austria and Scotland, so that families are not priced out of their communities; to cap food prices for a basket of essential goods, as France and Hungary have, so that no child goes hungry because the basics are unaffordable; to abolish the two-child cap on benefits and reverse the recent disability payment cuts—policies that undermine dignity and trap children in poverty. I ask them to launch a major programme of public housing construction using public land to build secure council homes for rent; to take our water companies back into public hands, ending the scandal of dividends flowing abroad while sewage pours into our rivers; to mandate universal broadband and affordable transport access as basic services in a modern economy.

I ask the Government to overhaul the tax system, to close the loopholes, tax wealth properly and ensure that revenues are not siphoned off into dividends and corporate profiteering, and to tie corporate subsidies and contracts to strict conditions on pay, investment and environmental responsibility. Finally, I ask them to stop mainstreaming racism. By all means, secure the borders and control migration to what we need, but take out the toxicity. Open secure routes and defend and deepen human rights—do not water them down—for all our sakes.

Those are not revolutionary demands, and they are not even radical demands; they are common-sense measures to ensure the economy serves the public, not the other way around. We need a plan for transformation, rather than tinkering at the edges or hoping that growth alone will deliver fairness by accident; a plan in which the demos, the people, have a greater say on how their life, and the life of their community, is shaped.

The alternative is stark. Failure to do those things will deliver our country into the hands of the authoritarian right. If we get this wrong, it will not mean some marginal difference in some marginal metric of living standards—it will be the difference between civil co-existence and barbarism, between a society held together by solidarity and one held together by scapegoating and fear.

People are crying out not just for a few extra pounds in their wage packet, but for security, dignity and hope. That means we must confront the extractive model, rediscover our roots in redistribution and democracy, stop pandering to racism and rebuild the social compact that once gave Britain both prosperity and purpose. People are not simply consumers to be measured or units of labour to be costed. They are the economy—not components of it, or cogs in someone else’s machine; they are the economy, and we seem to have forgotten that. If we forget it, we will not only fail to raise so-called living standards, but we will fail to rebuild trust, fail to hold our community together and fail to protect our democracy from those who would happily divide and rule. We can do better.

Financial Services Reform

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we have not announced a listing review; we have announced a listings taskforce—[Interruption.] It is different, if hon. Members will let me explain. It is a joint piece of work between the Office for Investment, His Majesty’s Treasury and other Government Departments to make sure that we attract the best and brightest companies to list here in the UK. He is correct, though: many reforms were undertaken by his Government on listings, taking forward the Jonathan Hill and Mark Austin reviews, and we welcomed and supported those.

The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that yesterday the FCA published its final prospectus rules. Of course, we have to get the regulatory side of the equation right, but he is correct that there are other factors at play, which we are looking at. On the FCA and the PRA, all I will say to reassure him is that, as he knows, I hold the relationship with both those regulators as the Economic Secretary. We will continue to push them to be ambitious in supporting our growth agenda.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I just want to confirm that my name is Clive, not Cassandra, Lewis—and yet, I feel like the Trojan princess, forever warning of things that will go wrong but being ignored. Will the Minister provide reassurance, given that the Bank of England has repeatedly warned that loosening mortgage lending standards and allowing more people to borrow larger sums relative to their income can push up house prices and increase financial instability? I appreciate that these are not the same deregulations that took place before the 2008 crash, but given the state of the global economy, surely she will understand that many of us on the Government Benches are cautious about deregulating at a time of such instability. I understand that we want to get more people on the housing ladder and to increase growth, but there is a risk. I wonder whether that risk has been duly appreciated.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

We mention the £22 billion because that is the inheritance that the Government now have to address. We have published a line-by-line account of the £22 billion black hole that the previous Government left. We are now growing the economy through our national wealth fund, our planning reform and our pensions reform, and we are reforming our public services, so that we can deliver for the people we came here to represent.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

As the Treasury team may be aware, there is a growing body of evidence that the growth of the financial sector beyond a certain size has an impact on the economy, particularly the productive economy. Over a 10-year period, it has cost the rest of the economy £4.5 trillion, so how will the Chancellor ensure that a growing financial sector will not harm the Government’s wider missions and the productive economy?

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Clive Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. That will depend on the exact set-up of the hospice, but typically hospices are independent charities, so they will be able to use the employment allowance against their national insurance contributions liability. They will also be able to access the other tax reliefs in the system that benefit charities, such as business tax relief and gift aid relief, which we have maintained in the Budget. We have taken the decision to maintain—

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Wendy Morton]

rose—

[James Murray]

Members will have to wait a second so that I can answer this question.

We will maintain the charitable reliefs in the system, such as business tax relief and gift aid relief. However, it is important to recognise that the decisions we have taken overall mean that over half of all employers will not pay any more or will pay the same national insurance as they did before. Their national insurance bill will be the same or less than it would have been otherwise.

[Clive Lewis]

Many of us in this House appreciate the work that my hon. Friend’s team are doing to unpick the mess we inherited, but one thing that has been pointed out is the need for better targeting. I have been talking to social enterprises and small businesses in my constituency. Social enterprises often do things that charities may do, but are considered as small businesses, although they do not get the same tax reliefs as charities. They also provide critical services in my constituency and in constituencies around the country. Is there not a better way to target micro-businesses and social enterprises to enable them to better manage what is quite a tough Budget for some of them?

[James Murray]

We recognise that tough decisions had to be taken throughout this Budget, but that is exactly why we have balanced the difficult decisions on the rate of national insurance and the decrease in the secondary threshold with the increase of the employment allowance, which helps small businesses and charities. There is no way that we can get through the measures announced in the Budget, and say that there will not be any difficult decisions for organisations or businesses to have to take. We are being up front about this. It is a tough decision for the Government to have to take, and it will mean that businesses must take difficult decisions as well. However, it is essential that we do this to fix the public finances, get our public services back on their feet and restore the economic stability that was squandered by the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

That is a very odd question when the Minister himself has said that the objective today is to provide more money for the health service. I guess I will think about what the hon. Gentleman has asked.

[Clive Lewis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Fuller]

I will be very happy to give way, but I will make some progress first.

If we take the Government at their word that their intention is to raise funds for public services, this measure is an inefficient way to do so. Under the provisions of the 1992 Acts on social security provision, only a proportion of the moneys raised by this form of taxation will be allocated to public services; the vast majority is essentially hypothecated to the national insurance fund. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of the moneys raised by the Bill will actually be allocated to the national health service? Will he also advise us of why the Chancellor chose this particular tax, which, uniquely, will burden the economy with far more in taxes levied than will actually end up going to support public services?

Employers large and small across the United Kingdom have been pleading with the Government to reverse this measure, letting them know about the impact it will have on jobs and on wages; the particularly harsh impact it will have on female workers and on young people starting out in their careers; the vulnerability of our hard-pressed hospitality businesses and high street retailers; or the pre-Christmas pleas of our charities, hospices and GPs about the way their contribution to public services has been completely ignored. Has the Minister been listening to the voices of people who actually have experience of running a business, creating jobs or delivering public services, who are telling him about the negative impact the Bill will have on jobs and pay, and even on their own viability, or has he been turning a deaf ear?

[Richard Fuller]

I have been listening to questions from Members who believe that this is “not a tax on working people” asking for exemptions from it. When we hear that these taxes are being levied on hospices, charities, GPs and small businesses, we cannot help but believe that Labour thinks that people work only when they work for the Government. The truth of the matter is that working people work in many institutions across the country—in small businesses, large businesses and in the third sector—as well as for the Government. This Government are taxing working people.

[Clive Lewis]

I think sometimes, listening to the Opposition, it is as if that money goes into a complete black hole. Those billions are not just going to go into public services like health, education and social housing; we are also putting that money into people’s pockets—into the pockets of nurses, doctors, engineers and builders—who will then spend their money in those businesses. It is called the multiplier effect. That money will go back into our economy, rebuild our public services, which the Conservatives destroyed, and go into the pockets of people through the economy. What’s not to like?

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman asks, “What’s not to like?”, but just a few minutes ago he was saying what he did not like in the Bill. He said he wanted exemptions that the Minister was not prepared to give him; I think his dispute is not with me, but with his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.

The British Retail Consortium—another section of the economy—wrote to the Chancellor detailing the costs of the measures to retailers: £0.57 billion from the rate increase and £1.76 billion for the reduction in the national insurance contributions threshold. It spelled out the consequences:

“For any retailer, large or small, it will not be possible to absorb such significant cost increases over such a short timetable. The effect will be to increase inflation, slow pay growth, cause shop closures, and reduce jobs, especially at the entry level. This will impact high streets and customers right across the country.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Clive Lewis Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Clive Lewis.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will probably not be too surprised to hear that when it comes to wasteful and expensive vanity projects, the Conservative party has not confined itself to national matters. Conservative-run Norfolk county council is attempting to push through a £300 million vanity road known as the Norwich western link, which measures 3.9 km at a cost of more than £70 million a kilometre. Will she look at that environmental and financial disaster, and work with those of us who know that there are more cost-effective and ecologically sound alternatives?