Draft Economic Growth (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2024 Draft Growth Duty: Statutory Guidance Refresh

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 General Committees

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Paisley. The draft order and the draft guidance issued under section 110(1) of the Deregulation Act 2015 were laid before the House on 6 March 2024.

I am pleased to initiate this debate, and I emphasise the Government’s commitment to upholding rigorous parliamentary scrutiny for statutory instruments that impact the UK’s independent regulators. The draft statutory instrument and guidance we are debating relate to the growth duty, a duty that requires specified regulators to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth when exercising certain regulatory functions. Regulators within the scope of this duty need to consider the potential impact of their activities and their decisions on economic growth, and ensure that any regulatory action they take is necessary and proportionate.

The growth duty applies to more than 50 regulators and came into statutory effect on 29 March 2017 under the Deregulation Act 2015. The regulators already covered include the Environment Agency, the Care and Quality Commission and the Gambling Commission. At present, the growth duty does not apply to the utilities regulators, which are the Office of Communications, also known as Ofcom, the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets or Ofgem, and the Water Services Regulation Authority or Ofwat. The draft instrument will extend the growth duty to those regulators, which oversee industry sectors accounting for 13% of annual private UK investment and about 4% of UK GDP. By extending the growth duty, we will ensure that those critical regulators have regard to the need to promote economic growth.

The Department for Business and Trade has also prepared refreshed related statutory guidance to provide greater clarity to support regulators in their application of, and reporting against, the growth duty. The draft refreshed guidance identifies drivers of growth and behaviours of smarter regulation to assist regulators better to ensure proportional regulation and support sustainable economic growth.

Regulators play a vital role in shaping the UK economy through the way in which they regulate. It is therefore critical that regulation is cognisant of the requirements of growth. A good regulatory environment emerging from the attentive and responsive stewardship of an effective regulator can create the conditions for business confidence and investment, sensible risk taking, and innovation. Together, the extension of the growth duty and the revised guidance will support a positive shift in how regulation is delivered, driving growth and paving the way for businesses to start and grow.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

We have discussed the actions of other regulators under the Minister’s remit on a number of occasion. Can he give us some examples of when actions of the water or energy regulators under the existing system have been detrimental to economic growth? The views I get from the public are that that is not where the biggest failing in the regulatory system is.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I think it is about ensuring that regulators are proportionate in their decision making and take into account the needs for economic growth. For example, speed of decision making is pretty important to someone who is investing in our economy—they want to ensure that there is a consistent framework and that, where changes are made, they are done quickly and with the input of businesses. The feedback we are hearing is that that is not always the case. As I said, from 2017 this regime was implemented for 50 other regulators, and the sky has not fallen in yet on those sectors when any changes have been made to the system.

I understand there is a perception that the growth duty may conflict with environmental duties or enforcement of protections. That is absolutely not the case. The draft refreshed growth duty statutory guidance sets out in the opening paragraph the importance of ensuring

“adequate protections for consumers and the environment.”

The growth duty does not and will not legitimise non-compliance with other duties or objectives, and its purpose is not to achieve or pursue economic growth at the expense of necessary protections. The guidance also identifies environmental sustainability as one of the seven drivers of economic growth. We set out in the guidance that natural capital and the ecosystems in which we live are fundamental to economic growth and therefore need to be safeguarded for economic growth to be sustained.

The draft SI will ensure that economic growth can form part of regulators’ decision making and purpose, thus supporting the change in behaviour being sought. By requiring the regulators to consider the growth duty, they will be empowered to consider areas that may not be reflected or may be only partly reflected in their duties, such as promoting innovation or trade growth.

The growth duty is not prescriptive and does not mandate particular actions, nor does it create a hierarchy over existing regulatory duties. The draft refreshed guidance is clear that regulators, as independent and experienced bodies, are best placed to balance their own decision making in that regard. The Government have also committed to review the impact of the extension of the SI within the related impact assessment, and will consider the impact and effectiveness of the growth duty on investment, growth, the environment and other factors in detail at the committed review point.

The draft refreshed guidance outlines drivers of sustainable economic growth supported by case studies, examples to provide clarity to regulators within scope of the duty and to help them promote growth. The guidance also identifies behaviours that contribute to good regulatory decision making and smarter regulation. The purpose of the guidance is to assist regulators to give appropriate consideration to the potential impact of their decisions on economic growth. The revised guidance encourages transparency and accountability for growth across regulators, with the aim of attracting investment and creating jobs.

The proposals are necessary to ensure that the energy, water and communications sectors strive for maximum efficiency over a sustained period. The draft refreshed guidance makes it clear that regulators should work with businesses on, among other things, the environment, trade, investment and skills to ensure sustainable medium to long-term economic growth. That will ensure that current-day economic growth can be achieved without undermining the ability of future growth. The refreshed growth duty guidance will support regulators in their application of, and reporting against, the growth duty. The Secretary of State’s overarching priority is to support businesses and grow the economy, which is what this draft instrument and supporting guidance seek to achieve today. I commend them to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I will ask the Committee to divide on the motion, because I do not see that it will solve the apparent problem, and I think it could create much worse problems for economic growth and, in particular, hard-pressed consumers.

The Minister gave an example of the kind of problem that we are trying to address: the fact that decisions sometimes take too long. I struggle to see how putting extra barriers and hurdles in a regulator’s way will make its decisions quicker. We all know the response of big business to a regulator that wants to make any significant changes to regulations. Big business does not complain that regulations have been brought in too slowly; it always complains that regulations have been brought in too quickly.

The failures in the regulation of the energy market over the last few years—the complete failure to protect hard-pressed consumers from massive money-grabbing, profit-making energy companies—occurred not because the regulator does not have any duty, or sufficient duty, regarding economic growth, but because the regulator is either unable or unwilling to carry out its primary purpose, which is to protect consumers. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned, the failure of the water companies to literally clean up their act occurred not because the regulator has too much freedom to regulate, but because it does not have sufficient powers or is not exercising those powers sufficiently. Putting extra barriers in its way, and creating extra excuses for billion-pound businesses to take legal action to slow down the regulatory process, will not speed up the cleaning up of Britain’s beaches and watercourses.

If we want companies such as Thames Water to contribute to the United Kingdom’s economic growth, why do we allow the Chinese Communist party to skim off almost 10% of the profits as dividends in years when the company makes a profit and in years when it makes a loss? Why have we allowed a situation in which, when the water and electricity companies appear to have a good year and make profits, those profits belong to somebody else, but as soon as the companies are in financial difficulty and need investment, that is suddenly the responsibility of taxpayers and customers? How does it contribute to economic growth that energy companies are allowed to bleed tens of millions of household budgets dry by hiking up prices, not because doing so was necessary but because they could get away with it?

The Government stepped in with a very expensive package of support, but that was not enough and has left future generations with a massive mortgage bill to pay. We will pay the debt from that intervention for years to come. The Chinese Government, who own a chunk of the UK’s water industry, and the French Government, who own a chunk of the electricity supply industry, are collecting dividends while UK taxpayers are subsidising customers who cannot afford their bills. How does that support economic growth? Why not require the energy regulator not to allow domestic bills to get higher than most consumers can afford, so that Government handouts are not needed to make up the difference? Bills increased not because doing so was necessary to keep energy companies sustainable, but because it was desirable for owners to keep energy companies profitable.

We should not forget that regulators were introduced, in some cases reluctantly, when these major public services were privatised, because even the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major were forced to accept that unregulated market economics would not work in a situation where there is effectively a natural monopoly on a basic requirement of life. There are few things in life more necessary than energy to keep warm and water to keep hydrated and clean, and turning them over to an unregulated market was not going to work. The regulators were given the powers to protect consumers from exploitation and abuse of market power, and that is where they should be focusing. Anything that puts barriers in the way of regulation on that is very likely to damage the interests of consumers.

In the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the draft order, I notice that almost the first comment is that a lot of those services now need massive investment— I wonder why. What is it about a massive profit-grabbing, internationally owned company that means that it failed to invest profits when times were good and is now looking for taxpayer handouts to invest when there is a need to update infrastructure? Why was it not forced to update that infrastructure as time went on? Why has it been allowed to get to the stage where the water supply system is barely fit for purpose?

Why do all those other countries have sovereign wealth funds that are able to buy up our water and energy supplies? Why does Britain not have a sovereign wealth fund? Britain has a sovereign wealth black hole, which at the end of 2023 was deepening to the tune of £10 billion a month. What are all those other countries doing right that Britain has been doing wrong for the last 50 years, which means that they have money to invest in other people’s essential services while the UK has an ever-expanding sovereign debt?

Why have we created a system where many of our life essential services now rely on investment from overseas pension funds, at the same time as the UK Government are trying to make it harder for British pension funds to invest in similar utilities overseas? What are Governments of other countries going to do if they feel that their interests are affected by UK pension funds not investing overseas? I will tell you, Mr Paisley: they are going to start making it harder for their pension funds to invest in our utilities. That is what is going to happen next.

I understand that the Conservative party, and to a large extent the Labour party, have a very different philosophy from mine. I think that the answer to a failing water supply system and energy market is to put them in the hands of the people who understand them best, which means bringing them back into public ownership. If the water companies claim that they are bust and have no money, what better time to take them off the hands of the Chinese and other foreign Governments? If they claim that the companies are not making money and are worth nothing, why do we not just offer them nothing to take them back into public ownership?

There has also been discussion about the communications regulator, where the issues are different. A lot of the challenges there tend to be technological, and how regulation keeps up with technology. By the time we have made regulations that come into force the day after tomorrow, technology will have changed. The Government must be well aware of the dangers of allowing particularly broadcast media to become too unregulated, as we are seeing in countries that are not too different from ours in many ways.

Ultimately, unregulated or inadequately regulated broadcast media is taking away people’s right to a fair trial if they are accused of a criminal offence. It is also taking away people’s right to a fair and free election, because there is insufficient regulation of the misinformation that can be put out on media channels in countries that are not politically, socially or historically far away from the United Kingdom.

I will press the Committee to a Division today, but I will not be surprised if only one person votes against the draft order. I am not convinced that the legislation will address the desperate problems that are facing our water supply, our energy supply and the different needs of the communications market. The draft order may make things worse, and it is unlikely to make things better, so I therefore ask the Committee to reject it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. The shadow Minister raised a number of important points about environmental protections. The new duty does not override the requirements of water companies or the regulator to ensure that environmental protections are put in place.

I would gently point out that there are two reasons why we are seeing such difficulties with our water suppliers now compared with the progressive change we have seen over recent years. First, we increased the monitoring of those dangerous parts of our system from 7% to 100% in 2010 so that we can see what is actually happening on the ground. We are also experiencing much higher rainfall, which is adding problems. To tackle this, the water companies have committed £96 billion for the period of 2025 to 2030. That is a 63% uplift on previous levels. Even before that, they were investing £6 billion annually, which is double the amount invested in capital infrastructure prior to privatisation. Work is being undertaken, but we accept that more needs to be done.

The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow raised concerns about takeovers. Clearly we have a number of different vehicles we can use to mitigate those concerns, whatever sector they may relate to. We have the National Security and Investment Act 2021 and, for issues on public interest grounds, the Enterprise Act 2002. She also spoke about sluggish growth. I suggest that she checks the figures on GDP growth since 2010 or 2016 or pre-pandemic levels. We are third in the G7 and are growing faster than anywhere else except—[Interruption.] Well these are the facts. The hon. Lady can choose her own opinion, but she cannot choose her own facts. The only countries that have grown faster than us since then are the US and Canada. That is an absolute fact, so she should check the figures before saying that there has been sluggish growth.

On the question of “Why now?”, when we included the 50 regulators in 2017, we thought that the growth duty to be applied to Ofgem, Ofwat and Ofcom required further consideration, because they are economic regulators responsible for markets where operators are deemed to have monopoly or near-monopoly market power. More recently, we decided to include them within the various requirements of the growth duty.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon asked about conflict. To reiterate, there is no hierarchy here. The requirements for the environment remain and are not replaced by this measure. In terms of prices, the regulator has an affordability duty as one of the requirements, so that should not override the price-setting role that is naturally played by a regulator in what is pretty much a monopoly sector.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes talked about the requirements and why we are introducing this measure. I point him to some very important stakeholders, including the Federation of Small Businesses, that have welcomed this new duty. He asks about a sovereign wealth fund, which is one of the Government’s plans—we have already announced a plan to introduce one. I would say to him that this is about growth, and point to the facts about growth in the UK, particularly in Scotland. Over the 10 years from 2011 to 2021, England’s GDP growth was 14.9%. The UK’s as a whole was 12.9% and Scotland’s was 7.2%. Growth is important. We cannot deliver the revenue that allows us to set up something like a sovereign wealth fund without economic growth. That is what this is about, so he should welcome it.

[Peter Grant]

The Minister’s statistics are very interesting. Can he give us the equivalent figure for England without the City of London?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman can easily find the figures through the House of Commons Library, as I did. Is he envious of the City of London? We should be proud of this great city. Scotland has great cities too. I am a big fan of Edinburgh, Glasgow and other cities. What I am saying is that growth is important. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is not. I would ask him to think again about that perspective.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. To conclude, by extending the growth duty to Ofgem, Ofcom and Ofwat, we will ensure that the regulators have regard to the need to promote economic growth. An economy that promotes growth is an economy that is better able to attract businesses to our shores, innovate, serve households and deliver prosperity across our nations.

Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Supplementary and Incidental Provisions) Regulations 2024 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2024 General Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I will also be supporting these regulations. The Minister and I have often worked together trying to deal with a great deal of the wreckage that has been caused in the past by either inadequate legislation or, all too often, inadequate or non-existent enforcement. I look forward to these and other new regulations’ having the very quick impact they are designed to.

I am pleased to hear the Minister mention that one batch of fraudulent filings has been cut off very quickly under Companies House’s new powers. I do not know if he is allowed to tell us whether any criminal action is being considered, because it is a criminal offence to submit false information to the register of companies. It raises the question, again, about how we implement these measures if the documents have been filed online from overseas, often from a country that is not particularly friendly to the UK and is quite happy to see the UK’s business environment corrupted.

While we celebrate that success, the Minister may be aware that the wonderful Graham Barrow has identified within the last couple of days that a domestic address in South Lanarkshire is a company director and a sole shareholder of a company. Clearly, there is something false in that filing but, again, it got on to the Companies House register. I hope it will be reviewed quite quickly. Given that it was filed electronically, it should not be too hard to identify who was responsible for that particular piece of false filing.

I welcome the financial penalties regulations, but I have some concerns that this might become a “get out of jail cheap” card for persistent offenders. I hope that, when Companies House publishes the guidance for how it will use these new powers, it recognises that there will be times when financial penalties are appropriate and also times when it is clearly more appropriate to go through the longer and more costly process of criminal prosecutions.

Are there implications for the resourcing of the Courts and Tribunals Service, for appeals, for example? It is under pressure just now. I expect that the resource implications for Companies House have already been identified, because I know there has been an increase in its resources recently.

I have some questions about the penalty notices. Will the Minister explain why he referred to them as civil rather than criminal penalties? There is precedent in, for example, road traffic offences and some public order offences, in respect of which a criminal fixed penalty is applied and that can appear on somebody’s criminal record. If a number of the penalties are applied to somebody, first, is a formal totting-up process specified, so that at some point, as a matter of law rather than the judgment of Companies House, that person can no longer go down that road and will be prosecuted? Secondly, will the penalties appear on a person’s criminal record, so that, if need be, that shows up if they go into sensitive employment? I think the Minister mentioned something about the relevance to possible director disqualification proceedings, but will he confirm that the penalties will be a relevant factor in considering whether a director is fit to continue in post?

I have a few questions about the provisions on offences concerned with the audit of a company. The Minister will know that some of the companies that I have been most concerned about have, by various means, managed to avoid having to produce audited sets of accounts. For example, if the whole Blackmore Bond group had had to be audited to professional standards, the problems would have been identified several years earlier. There are massive questions about the one part of the group that was supposed to get audited. There were glaring mis-statements in some of the accounts that the auditors signed off on. We cannot allow that to happen. One of Blackmore Bond’s annual reports almost said, in so many words, “We are a Ponzi scheme,” but neither Companies House nor the auditors seemed to pick that up.

All that is relevant, of course, only if a company is required to publish detailed accounts and certainly have them audited, which does not usually include companies that are regarded as small companies for the purposes of the legislation, but which also have the capacity, and occasionally the willingness, to take substantial amounts of money, often running into the tens of millions of pounds, from innocent members of the public. Are there any plans to allow the registrar, in exceptional circumstances, to require, in the public interest, an audit, or the publication, of full sets of accounts for companies for which that otherwise would not be required? For example, we sometimes see whole sets of associated companies that are incorporated, trade for a few years and are wound up, never having produced a set of accounts, and everything then transfers to a different company that trades for a few years. It is possible for rogue directors to run a business empire for 10 or 15 years without ever having to submit a set of audited accounts. Are there any plans for legislation to close that loophole? Again, a provision of that kind would have stopped a lot of the Blackmore Bonds of this world. It would not have stopped Blackmore Bond completely, but it would have identified it sooner and at least restricted the damage inflicted on all our constituents.

As with another statutory instrument on economic crime that we debated not so long ago, I welcome these regulations. The Minister will know that I did not think the economic crime Act itself went far enough, and I hope that action will be taken soon to strengthen it. I am always impatient about action to clamp down on economic crime, because too many people have been getting away with it for far too long. One thing I like about the provisions is that they allow rogue directors and their companies to take a financial hit much more quickly. Most of the enforcement action available up until now has been long-winded and can be very expensive, and it is quite possible for the villains to delay it so much that, in effect, when justice is delayed, it is seen to be completely denied.

I welcome the change and, as I said, will certainly support the two sets of regulations. I look forward to an opportunity for either me or one of my colleagues to consider a number of the other statutory instruments that the Minister is working hard to bring before us.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank Committee members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The shadow Minister asked about resources; the Government provided £63 million to start the work at Companies House on the change from having a dumb register to having a proactive registrar who maintains the integrity of the register. Also, £20 million was provided last year through the economic crime levy, which will be one of the future sources of funding. The key area for funding is the uplift in the registration fees and annual filing fees at Companies House. It used to be £12 to register a company; it is now £50. It used to be £13 to lodge an annual return; it is now £34. We think that provides Companies House and the Insolvency Service, which is the enforcement body for such matters, with the extra resources needed, and hundreds more people will come as a result. It will also fund things such as the intelligence hub, which is hugely important.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes might want to alert Companies House about the address that has been used improperly. Companies House should then deal with that, and can do so much more quickly as a result of the new powers.

[Peter Grant]

I am sure it will come as no surprise to the Minister to hear that Mr Barrow has already done that. We look forward to that company being removed from the register quite soon. One of the things that I found interesting is that the address used is not the company’s registered address.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman offline about that particular case, but any Member of this House or member of the public can alert Companies House about incorrect filings. As I say, as a result of what we have already done, that can be acted on much more quickly.

The hon. Gentleman talked about disqualification, and yes, absolutely, penalties can, as I said in my opening speech, contribute to a decision on disqualification. The penalties are civil penalties, but where the registrar feels that the conduct or offences are sufficiently serious, they can pass that on to the relevant prosecution body —the Insolvency Service, the police, the National Crime Agency or others. That is the kind of approach that Companies House typically takes.

The hon. Gentleman raised Blackmore Bond again, and has done a fantastic job of raising that on so many occasions. We have finally seen the FCA actually do something about it, as a result of much work. I remind the hon. Gentleman that what underpins the whole regime is the recognition that it is impossible, given the number of records, for Companies House to be a policeman of every single record and everything that happens. Five million companies are on the register, and 800,000 were registered last year alone, so it is not practical to look at every single one, but there are serious consequences if people improperly or falsely file information, particularly if they do so maliciously. They can be sentenced to up to two years in prison. That underpins the regime as well.

I thank you, Ms Vaz. The debate has highlighted the need for a robust financial penalty regime at Companies House, as well as consistency in the law that governs business entities. I commend both sets of draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Financial Penalty) Regulations 2024.—(Kevin Hollinrake.)

Autumn Statement Resolutions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. I chair the Hospitality Sector Council and meet large and small hospitality businesses regularly, so I understand the pressure they are under. The hon. Gentleman has some such businesses in his constituency and I do too, so we know that is a problem. We have put a huge amount into supporting businesses with their energy costs, halving the cost of energy for most businesses. Energy is much more affordable than it was this time last year, which was an incredibly difficult time, but some businesses are locked into expensive energy contracts from the backend of last year, when prices were very high. If the hon. Gentleman has any examples of such businesses, he should bring them to me, as we have commitments from the energy suppliers, so we can challenge them and try to smooth the contracts over a longer period to ease the pain. I am happy to help him with any individual cases in his constituency.

On capital investment, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade will host 200 of the world’s leading investors at the Global Investment Summit this weekend and on Monday, which I hope to attend. It will showcase the UK as one of the world’s best places to do business, and drive billions of pounds of new and strategic investment into every corner of the economy.

The autumn statement has a host of innovative measures that will unlock investment and fuel growth. For example, our pension reforms will help unlock an extra £75 billion of financing for high-growth companies, while providing an even better deal for savers. Plans include a new growth fund within the British Business Bank to crowd in pension fund capital to the UK’s most promising businesses.

Another example is our plan for further funding for two British Business Bank programmes, including the long-term investment for technology and science competition. That will make £250 million available to successful bidders to increase investment in key science and technology sectors, with the private sector contributing at least as much again. Not only that—we have made £50 million available to extend the future fund breakthrough scheme, which backs businesses focusing heavily on research and development.

Although the Chancellor did not mention it yesterday, we have also introduced important measures for equity investments, including a 10-year extension to the enterprise investment scheme and the venture capital trust scheme, giving investors and businesses the confidence, certainty and stability to invest, which underpins the system.

Secondly, this autumn statement contains a series of measures that will provide smaller businesses with practical help. As we prepare to mark Small Business Saturday next weekend—I am sure that Members across the House will visit their small businesses on 2 December—it could not be a more timely moment to announce our business rates support package. It will help high streets and protect smaller firms, which are the life blood of our local communities, saving the average independent pub more than £12,000 a year, and the average independent shop over £20,000.

In addition, the autumn statement will include measures to toughen our regulations to tackle late payments. I have seen at first hand how this scourge can crush even the most determined of business owners’ dreams, so it is right that we act.

The Procurement Act 2023 means that the 30-day payment terms, which are already set for public sector contracts, will automatically apply through the subcontract supply chain. From April next year, any company bidding for large Government contracts will have to be able to demonstrate that they pay their own invoices within an average of 55 days and that will reduce progressively to 30 days.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for the steps that he has announced today, but of course the proof of the pudding lies in the enforcement. Sex discrimination at work has been illegal for almost 50 years, but it still happens. The Minister will be aware that, as well as calling for action on late payment generally, I have often raised an issue that we get in the construction and civil engineering sectors, where the main contractor is paid on time but keeps the money for an inordinate length of time. If the main contractor then does a Carillion and goes down, all the money becomes part of its administration and very often the subcontractors get nothing. Can we have legislation, a code of practice or something to protect small business subcontractors from being dragged down when the main contractor goes under?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this for some time and I have great regard for the work he does. It is worth him reading the “Payment and Cash Flow Review”, which was published yesterday alongside the autumn statement. It includes some references to retentions, to which he refers. There are other measures from the small business commissioner as well as more transparency on late payments. I am happy to engage with him further on this issue.

Although taxes pay for vital public services, this Government are clear that they must not stifle business owners’ ambitions. Quite simply, our economy relies on those ready to take risks and to innovate. Time and again, these entrepreneurs tell me that a simpler tax system would make life easier for them. This autumn statement will not just reduce tax but reform it, while putting more money into employees’ pockets.

The abolition of class 2 national insurance will save the average self-employed person £192 a year. Alongside the 1% reduction in the rate of class 4 national insurance, some 2 million self-employed people will be saving an average of £350 a year from next April.

In addition, from next year we will merge the existing research and development expenditure credit and the small and medium-sized enterprise R&D scheme. This will allow companies to claim back a proportion of their spending in this area through their tax bill, further simplifying the system and boosting innovation.

Finally, and very significantly, we have unveiled game-changing plans to make full expensing permanent. As the Chancellor set out yesterday, expensing aims to stimulate investment by giving larger companies £250,000 off their tax bill for every £1 million they invest. It was introduced, as hon. Members know, by the Chancellor in the spring and was set to last for three years, but it has been such a success, and the calls for it to continue have been so loud and clear that yesterday the Chancellor made it a permanent policy. This is the largest single tax cut in modern British history. It means that we now have not just the lowest headline corporation tax rate in the G7, but the most generous capital allowances too. That is hugely appealing to any business looking for a home in a global market.

The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that this move alone will increase annual investment by around £3 billion a year, and by £14 billion over the forecast period. We are able to do this only because we have met our borrowing rules early, have more than halved inflation, and are seeing our debt go down every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Absolutely. I apologise in full, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Government not only made that decision in their own short-term interests, which compares very poorly even with previous Conservative Governments, but by selling the land, they did so in such a way as to prevent a future Government from trying to correct it. That is the controversy that the Minister makes. Of course, we are still very much committed to Northern Powerhouse Rail—the Crossrail project for the north of England—which would be important for my constituency, but of course, that plan itself relies partly on what was going to be HS2 infrastructure.

As the Minister knows, his Government are making a series of quite bizarre short-term decisions, and trying to use those decisions to present themselves as the party of change at the next election. We all face the consequences, which is regrettable. If the Minister were being totally candid in private, I think he would acknowledge that the north of England has really suffered from those short-term decisions, which we should all very much regret.

The Chancellor spoke at length about long-term sickness yesterday, and again, he was right to do so. We are the only country in the G7 where the participation rate is still below pre-pandemic levels, with long-term sickness at an all-time high of 2.6 million. Unfortunately, all we got was the same old rhetoric and the same old policies. What we needed to hear are two things. First, we need to have some efforts to get people off NHS waiting lists. That is what we would do, by providing 2 million more NHS appointments from the revenue we would get from abolishing the non-dom rule.

Secondly, we need to focus on mental health. That is why we would guarantee people a mental health appointment within a month and make mental health support available in schools, paid for by ending the tax breaks for private education. That would be real support. They are better choices than those the Government have chosen to make, because we in the Opposition know that a strong economy, good public services and social justice are not competing demands; they are all integral to one another.

[Peter Grant]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for further investment in the NHS, which we on the SNP Benches would certainly support, but can he confirm the words of the shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting)? Is it the intention of the Labour party to fight the next election on a manifesto that says it will

“hold the door wide open”

to the private sector in our NHS?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

No, and I think the hon. Member is being a little bit mischievous there, and he is aware of that. What my hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary has reaffirmed is Labour’s historic and enduring commitment to a national health service that is free at the point of use and is managed and run as a national public service. He has also said that there clearly needs to be reform of the NHS to take advantage of new treatments and new ways of doing things; some incredibly exciting developments in life sciences and genomics have to be part of that. I think we would all recognise from our own constituency experiences that the NHS could do better in terms of how it interacts with people and how it gets people the treatment they need in a timely fashion.

What is relevant to this debate in particular is that, as well as being important issues about people needing healthcare and how they get it, these are economic issues. We want to get waiting lists down because we want people to have the medical treatment they need, but we also recognise that with so many people out of work and wanting to get back to work when they are waiting for treatment, it is imperative to get those waiting lists down. Under the last Labour Government, we saw tremendous progress in using the capacity available out there as part of a nationally run and nationally managed national health service to deliver that. Having successfully done that before in government, we believe we can successfully do it again, and that is what we intend to do.

Yesterday really lifted the lid on 13 years of Conservative economic failure. It laid bare the full scale of the damage that this Conservative party has done to our economy, and nothing that has been announced will remotely compensate for those 13 years. Only the Conservatives could preside over the greatest fall in living standards and call it a victory. Only the Conservatives could burden the country with the highest tax bill since the war and then pat themselves on the back for a cursory 2p national insurance cut. Only the Conservatives could crash the economy and send mortgages, food bills and energy costs rocketing and have the audacity to ask the country to trust them on the economy ever again.

As the credits roll on 13 years of Conservative failure, the reviews are in too: business has lost confidence in them, the public have lost patience with them, and even those on their own Benches know that this will not be enough to save them. While the Tories try to kid themselves, I do not believe the British public will be taken for fools. They know that after 13 years, we are all worse off under the Conservatives, and the only way we can truly turn the corner on this litany of failure is with a new and Labour Government—a Government who would put working people first, get energy bills down and get wages up; a Government who would give business the confidence to choose Britain again; a Government rebuilding our crumbling public services and getting waiting lists down; a Labour Government with the ambition, the ideas and the energy to get Britain’s economy really moving and deliver the real change our country is crying out for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

As with any major political announcement, the Government clearly had a whole series of long-term and short-term objectives for the autumn statement. I am pleased to confirm that the statement has already achieved what was probably the Government’s single biggest objective: it got good headlines right across the front pages of the right-wing press. They were not true headlines—they were completely untrue —but when did that worry the present Conservative Government? On the one hand, we have The Sun, The Times, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express—all bastions of responsible journalism—celebrating a tax-cutting Budget, and on the other hand, we have the BBC, Channel 4 news, Sky News, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation all saying that it is a tax-increasing Budget and we are heading for the highest tax burden any of us can remember. Who do we believe? That is a difficult question: who do we believe?

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

On that point, is it not a godsend that we do actually have something from the OBR this time, when 12 months ago we had nothing? That was a determined effort by the then Prime Minister and Chancellor not to have anything, so as to deceive the public.

[Peter Grant]

I do not know if I am allowed to repeat the verb that the hon. Member used—perhaps we should make it “persuade” the public, rather than “deceive” them, which I do not think we are allowed to say in this place—but I think the covid inquiry has blown that wide open. We have a Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, deliberately avoided asking for advice from the experts when he knew he was not going to like the advice he would get. It is barely a year since the Government Benches were full of people denouncing the idea of having an OBR because, in their words, “Economic forecasts are always wrong,” but as soon as economic forecasts begin to suggest that things may be improving, they suddenly want us all to believe them.

It is clear that by the end of this period of Tory rule, people will be paying more in tax in real terms than they were before. I am not against asking people to pay tax if they can see some benefit to the general welfare as a result, but that is not what is happening. We are looking at the largest reduction in real living standards since the 1950s. I did a quick check, and that is before either I or the Minister was even born. Perhaps there are one or two Members here who were alive at that time—I will not look at anyone in particular—but there are not very many. This is what has been described to us in Scotland as the “broad shoulders of the Union”. However, the broad shoulders of the Union have delivered the biggest reduction in real living standards in Scotland since before most of us were born.

While there are some aspects of this statement that we certainly welcome, the good bits do not go nearly far enough and the bad bits go far too far. I welcome the cut in national insurance, but let us not forget that that puts back into the pockets of workers only a quarter of the amount they are losing because tax thresholds have been frozen during a time of high inflation. When people have been getting 5% or 10% pay rises recently, it has not been a pay rise; it has just been trying to keep up with rising costs. Leaving the tax thresholds where they are means that somebody who in real terms is getting less top-line pay than they were two years ago is still having to pay more tax as a result.

The Chancellor boasted about the national insurance cut giving back, in his words, “nearly £450 per year” to average earners. Somehow he did not have time to mention that that drops to just £36 a year by the time we take account of the increases in real levels of income tax. Of course, as of this morning, it has been wiped out completely by the increase in fuel bills that we are all going to face next year. So this is not a giveaway budget; it is a pickpocket budget. It uses the classic pickpocket technique of using a nice thing to distract us—a tuppence cut in national insurance—while someone slips around the back and swipes the higher fuel bills, the higher income tax and higher everything else out of our back pocket at the same time.

We could have seen real action to address what is still the single biggest crisis affecting tens of millions of people on these islands, which is the very real panic people are in every week over the cost of living. We could have seen a continuation of the £400 energy bill rebate for households. We could have seen the Government funding a council tax freeze in the way the Scottish Government have done, meaning that Scotland now has the lowest—yes, the lowest—average council tax in the United Kingdom. They could have followed the SNP’s example and brought in a UK child payment similar to the game-changing Scottish child payment, lifting thousands of children out of poverty.

I welcome confirmation that benefits and pensions will not be cut in real terms. They are not increasing; they are being pegged in real terms, and that is all. However, the fact that that was under serious consideration until about 24 hours before the Chancellor’s statement tells us everything we need to know about where this Government’s values lie, and they do not lie in the same place as the values of Scotland. Alternatively, maybe there was never any danger of that cut being implemented, and they were just threatening it so they could make themselves look good when they announced no change. In the words of the Child Poverty Action Group:

“Struggling families have been worrying themselves sick for months about whether an unmanageable…cut was coming in order to provide the government with a rabbit-out-of-the-hat moment.”

Just as over the last few years we have seen the Tories wanting to punish homeless people for daring to be homeless and wanting to punish asylum seekers for daring to flee certain death, they are now planning to punish people who are ill and people with disabilities for daring to want to have a living at the same time as being ill or having a disability. We know what we should expect and what is coming next. The press were all trained to respond today, so we can expect an avalanche of rhetoric in the right-wing press denouncing anybody on disability benefits, in the same way that they have denounced migrants and asylum seekers for years and years. They denounced them as scroungers and fraudsters, all to give cover to a brutal and inhumane attack by a brutal and inhumane Government.

The party that last year demanded that all civil servants returned to full-time office working immediately, because working from home is not properly working, is now saying that people on disability-related benefits will face the choice between taking up a—non-existent—working from home vacancy or literally facing starvation. Yesterday, the Prime Minister either would not or could not tell us how many vacancies currently being advertised in DWP jobcentres would be suitable for home working, or maybe he just did not care enough to bother finding out. The answer, incidentally, is that about one in 20 of those vacancies might be suitable for home working, which is not nearly enough to get the number off benefits that the Chancellor claims to think is realistic.

More than 100 disability organisations have warned that the Government’s inhumane policy could lead to unnecessary deaths, and that is not a blank threat. Last year, a study by the Glasgow Centre for Population Health and Glasgow University found that over 300,000 deaths in Britain could be attributed to Government austerity policies. Austerity is not an economic necessity. Austerity is unnecessary, and those 300,000 deaths were unnecessary as well.

I welcome some of the measures announced to support small businesses. As I mentioned in an intervention, we still need to see real action to protect small subcontractors involved in big infrastructure projects, so that they do not go down if the main contractor goes down. A lot of small businesses have now stopped bidding for that kind of work because they are worried that it may put them out of business, rather than keep them in business.

It is disappointing that, yet again, there is no movement on the determined calls from the hospitality industry to reduce or abolish VAT on that sector, even temporarily. A few weeks ago, I lost yet another award-winning small business café in my constituency, because such people just cannot continue working eight hours a day and earning less than the legal minimum wage. It is a bit ironic that the Government who caused rampant inflation now expect us to cheer when they start to bring it down. It is a wee bit like an arsonist expecting a medal for helping to put out half the fire.

We welcome additional support for green industries, but look what is happening among our competitors. In the UK, the figure is £960 million in total by 2030—yes, very nice—but the equivalent figure in Germany is €4.1 billion and in France it is €500 million every year, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research.

What has happened to the hydrogen town announcements we were promised in March 2023? I have world-leading work going on in my constituency as part of the H100 project, which is a much smaller-scale project to assist in conversion from natural gas to hydrogen. That is a chance for Scotland, for Fife and for Methil to be at the centre of one of the world’s leading industries. Whether a bid from Fife or a bid from somewhere else is going to be successful we do not know, and we do not even know who has bid yet. That announcement was due in March, and it is now too late for that work to be done according to the original timetable. Can the Minister give us an update, or are the Government planning to just walk away from green hydrogen in the same way that they walked away from wave and tidal power in the 1980s and 1990s?

By comparison, despite the fact that the Scottish Government do not have anything like the borrowing power or indeed the legislative power of this place, and despite the fact that more and more of Scotland’s funding is having to go into the funding holes left by the policy failures of the UK Government, we now have 1.2 million people under the protection of a Scottish benefits system that explicitly on its home page puts “dignity, fairness and respect” at its heart. Those are not words that many people who use DWP services would use.

As I have said, the Scottish Government have frozen council tax, and are lifting children out of poverty with the Scottish child payment. They are providing support to mitigate the additional heating costs that households with very severely disabled children and young people face through the winter heating payment, and free school meals to all children in primary 1 to 5 and eligible children throughout school. Scotland has a much more widespread and more widely available bus concession scheme than the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Child Poverty Action Group has calculated that these policies mean that the cost of raising a child in SNP-governed Scotland is £27,000 less in total than for an equivalent family living under Tory rule in England. Is it any wonder that the Tories have no chance of being elected any time soon, or any time ever in Scotland? The Chancellor could have extended those benefits to hard-pressed families in England but he chose not to do it. It is not that he could not do it; it just was not important enough to him.

People in Scotland cannot afford to wait for a change in Government policy in Westminster to make things better. One of the features of this autumn statement is that things look bad enough just now, but they will get a million times worse immediately after the next election, so regardless of what the Opposition think they are going to be able to do if they win it, their hands will be tied. The warning to people in Scotland is, “You might think you’re voting for a change, but if you vote Labour, you’ll be voting for more of the same.”

We are calling on the UK Government to transfer to the Scottish Parliament permanently the powers to act on energy, employment, welfare and the economy, so that Scotland gets the policies it votes for and that it needs. We must reinstate the £400 energy bill rebate, and follow the example of other countries such as France in taking proper action to bring food prices down. Increasing food prices are not making life any easier for farmers; they are losing out. They are not making bigger profits; the supermarkets might be but the farmers certainly are not. The Government could boost people’s incomes by introducing a proper living wage that is actually enough to live on. They could also increase benefits in line with inflation and maybe a bit more, and match the Scottish child payment UK-wide.

Those policies represent our values; they represent the values of the Scottish National party, because they are the values of Scotland’s people. It is becoming increasingly clear that no Westminster Government will ever deliver to Scotland the policies it votes for. The only way to have a set of Government policies that embeds the values of Scotland’s people is to put those policies firmly into the hands of an independent Scottish Government.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

In these unprecedented times, we stand at the crossroads of recovery and resilience, and the autumn statement gives us a clear road map for the challenging economic terrain we still find ourselves in. I have a lot of time for the shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), but I gently remind him that when we came to power in 2010, the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) had left a note saying there was no money left. We have made a lot of progress since then and taken long-term decisions, and it was only thanks to that that we were able to pay for the substantial financial support we rightly gave to families and businesses during the covid pandemic. But we are still paying for that support and that is part of the challenge we face. Targeted support schemes such as the furlough scheme demonstrated a deep understanding of the challenges faced by businesses and employees, and I remind the House that no such scheme was put in place after the financial crash overseen by the previous Labour Government.

We still have an aftershock from covid at home in terms of economic productivity, but we are much boosted by the new trade deals that have been secured and I look forward to our taking advantage of that. The key issue, however, is the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Putin and the impact on energy costs. Again, we have given unprecedented financial support in the past few years to households and businesses. I was, frankly, somewhat shocked by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant); I never thought of him as a Putin apologist. To try to suggest that this Government stimulated the inflation is far from the truth, and he knows it is that energy challenge that has really made the difference. That is why it is right that the Government are investing in the energy of the future while also making sure that we can keep the lights on.

I welcome the measures in the Chancellor’s statement yesterday. They reflect a profound understanding of the evolving needs of our society and economy, highlighting the imperative to adapt and evolve.

[Peter Grant]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Coffey]

No, I will not.

The autumn statement unveiled a comprehensive plan that addresses immediate needs while also putting in place the foundations for long-term growth. The measures outlined in it serve as pillars of stability, fostering hope and laying the true foundations for a resilient and prosperous future. There are 110 measures, and I must admit that I have not read the entire Green Book, but some parts stood out to me, particularly those on backing business and making work pay. This autumn statement clearly sets the way for growth.

Given the challenges facing business, the full deduction is welcome and this is a good moment to make it permanent, especially as the UK will be hosting the global investment summit this coming Monday. I used to work for Mars, Incorporated and I know its investment in capital was pivotal to its manufacturing industry productivity and financial success, so I welcome this improvement and the long-term confidence in investment in manufacturing capital and other areas.

Businesses in my constituency, particularly those in hospitality and tourism, will welcome the business rates measure. It will help with cash flow, but I have heard today from Andrew Dalby, managing director of Brafe Engineering in my constituency, a very successful business largely driven by exports, and he has made a point to me that I want to share with the House. He says:

“The R&D tax credits…must run in parallel to see the development through to profitability to then permit the investment in the selected capital equipment needed to boost production efficiency.”

There are other substantial elements, but Brafe Engineering needs to make its components part of the system in providing skills and equipment to energy companies. It needs to enhance how it manufactures those complex components, but there is no grant system to support that and to help its customers succeed. For that business, I encourage my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to consider further work on the benefits of adjusting the R&D tax credit claims. I am aware that when they were introduced about 15 years ago, there was abuse of them, particularly by financial firms, so I think the Treasury will continue to be cautious, but we need to make sure that in R&D we focus not just on research but on development too, because that is where the value will come from.

I am thrilled that we are finally getting on with the reforms to solvency II. I remember a meeting in Downing Street just after COP26. I had been encouraging a lot of financial institutions there to raise this issue, and I am very pleased that—after some resistance, I think, from some of the institutions in Government because of the uncertainty it would bring, and indeed some concerns on pension fiduciary duties—we have found a way through, as we must unlock that investment for the long term. This has always seemed odd to me: we want things such as the local government pension scheme, so why do they not invest in the infrastructure they want if they believe it represents good value for taxpayers’ money? I am not just referring to local government. There are plenty of other insurers and others who can try to get a better return from long-term investment and long-term pension increases.

One of the big highlights of the autumn statement were the big tax cuts, for employees in particular. That is very welcome. I will be surprised if any Member votes against the legislation announced for next Thursday, because it is very important that we help people in these challenging times with more money in their pockets.

I welcome the announcements about stability in benefits and pensions. We have twice voted in this Parliament to set aside the earnings lock, recognising what happened with the dip in earnings where if we had not changed the law we would have frozen pensions. That would not have been the right thing to do, so we put in place our triple lock and lifted pensions then by 2.5%. That was followed by a year when there was a surge or spike—almost a covid-related distortion—when again the House agreed to set aside the normal earnings link. I was in the Government then and I did say that that would be it and we would apply the triple lock policy for the remainder of the Parliament. I am conscious that this is one of the biggest earnings uplifts that people will enjoy and it is right that pensioners share in that success. I am delighted we have kept to our commitments, therefore.

The Government have wisely recognised the need for a change to the local housing allowance. We made a shift during covid but then froze that change. Increasing interest rates have led to challenges in terms of rents, so I am pleased we have reinstated that. It represents a large sum of money. When we did this a few years ago, it cost an extra £1 billion just for the following year. There will be an extra £1.3 billion of spending, so I expect the amount of money taxpayers now pay in housing support will probably rise to about £32 billion or £33 billion a year. That is a substantial sum to help others, but I am conscious that there have been particular challenges with regard to local housing allowance and finding appropriate accommodation in various parts of the country.

The broader aspects of the back to work plan that have been announced and the reforms to welfare are welcome. Some of the catcalls directed at the Chancellor yesterday were completely undeserved. There is no greater dignity than being in work. Many people want to work, but feel that they cannot. They struggle to do so, and it is absolutely right that we help people into work. During my three years in the Department for Work and Pensions —we were in the covid pandemic for part of that—it was critical to try to help people’s mental health and wellbeing to support them to get back into work.

I am conscious of the issues that people have raised about access to mental health appointments and so on, but such things as the expansion of individual placement and support and other aspects of universal support go straight to the heart of trying to tackle some of the barriers that people face. Instead of focusing on some of the changes that will happen to fit notes, the whole focus has been—I worked on this for some time, and I am delighted that policies came through last year and we are seeing the funding to support them—on what people can do, not what they cannot.

I am conscious that GPs do not like to be the barrier to the gateway to benefits, but it must be good for their patients if, instead of just signing them off with even more time out of work, they were helping them to find a way through. If we wanted to be radical, perhaps the NHS budget should pay for disability benefits of people of working age. That would bring it together. I appreciate that may be a step too far at this moment, but it is about working together so that people have a fulfilling life. That is not only about being in work and away from social isolation, but the extra financial rewards that come from it.

[Peter Grant]

We are all in favour of helping people back to work, but is it not the case that by focusing on the punishment aspect, as the Chancellor and Prime Minister have done, we are talking not about helping people back to work, but about starving them back to work, whether or not they are fit to go back to work?

[Dr Coffey]

I am not sure why I gave way. I should have expected a low-quality comment like that.

In terms of the thinking about when we were coming out of covid, I worked with the now Prime Minister on the Way to Work, and we got 500,000 people back into jobs. A lot of that comes with support, but there were other aspects, such as bringing interviews into the jobcentres so that people actually turned up. I commend in particular our frontline work coaches. Candidly, if any Member of Parliament has not been to the jobcentre in their constituency or nearby, I strongly urge them to do so. They are a beacon of hope for people who are often desperate, but those who work there are frustrated by the fraud they experience, and they would like to do more about it. This sort of approach—not a stick, but a carrot—helps people. It gives a lot of time and support.

I note the expansion of the restart programme, which is to be improved, and that is good, but it has been successful in getting people back into work. There are a few ghosts, I suppose, within the benefits system, and it can be challenging to identify them. I am conscious that the Department for Work and Pensions considers the vulnerability of its claimants. It is a sensible approach and a step forward, and I know it will be undertaken with great care.

One of the other aspects I will talk a bit more about is planning and energy. I commend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Government more broadly on one aspect: finally, we will have a much more co-ordinated approach on the national grid. I have been trying to get that sorted for my constituents for six or seven years, and the proposed reforms have come too late for them. We still have a disconnected element and we still have projects that should have come in as direct current, where the infrastructure was built to support that and the developer then changed their mind. New infrastructure then had to be built for the same developer. There are no jobs that come with that. It is not about being a nimby, but about trying to make sure that we have a co-ordinated grid for the future, recognising the dynamic change that has happened, instead of the traditional coal and gas plants that we had. We have moved to a situation where a lot more of our energy will be coming in directly from the coast.

I encourage the Government to look again at considering existing brownfield sites where there are already energy connections, whether that is the Isle of Grain or Bradwell in Essex, rather than ploughing up acres and hectares of land that is otherwise used for agricultural production. Indeed, I recognise my constituents’ concerns about the change in status of a lot of this network to almost default approval; that goes against the normal way of doing planning. I understand why the Government are considering this, but it will be unwelcome in my constituency. We will be debating the national policy statements on energy at another time, so I will not dwell on that now. I understand that we have to move as quickly as possible, but I think that a more holistic approach, even for projects that are in the pipeline now, should be undertaken. My understanding is that that will not delay the connections in the future.

The port of Felixstowe is part of a freeport, and I welcome the extensions there, given the benefits. I ask the Minister to work with other Departments, particularly the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to ensure that the freeports are effective and flowing, and to listen to the feedback from people in East Anglia about how we think some aspects could be improved. We will discuss the local government finance settlement on another occasion, but when it comes to spending I am conscious of the challenge that county councils in particular face on social care, special education needs and disabilities, and transport to school.

Historically, a constituency like mine would be seen as exceptionally prosperous; it always surprises people when I tell them that the median salary is far higher in Liverpool—apart from in Liverpool, Walton—than in my constituency. That is because a lot of people come to my part of the world to retire. There is quite long life expectancy in the area, but people in the health system know that as soon as someone goes past 80, the likelihood that they engage the NHS and social care is much higher. This long life that people enjoy—I continue to welcome people who come to see the special coast of Suffolk Coastal—needs to be taken account of, rather than some of the traditional assumptions. Indeed, the chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty recently highlighted that in his annual report.

I encourage the Government to go even further on a few things, on top of their 110 measures. One is continuing to focus on supply-side reform. We have already seen what is being proposed for energy, and trying to get a connection timeline down from five years to six months is sensible because it can be very frustrating for people wanting to connect. But we should go further. Yesterday I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on the apprenticeship levy. Let us also go a bit further on childcare; the Government have done some really good things, but let us go further and see whether we do need Ofsted to be the arbiter. Why can we not rely on our local councils, which already have a statutory duty for children and adults? We could consider that, as it would localise provision as well.

I could go further. I have a particular pet project for the Department for Transport, which the Transport Secretary well knows. People who passed their driving test before 1997 can drive a D1, which is basically a minibus not for hire, and a C1, which is a typical Tesco or Ocado delivery van; they are also used by many other firms, like Amazon, DPD and so on. A European regulation then required people to undertake the expensive tests needed for HGVs. I think that is unnecessary. At the time, I guess it must have been a Labour Government, or perhaps it was still a Conservative one; I cannot quite remember—[Interruption.] I apologise: it must have been a Conservative Government who thankfully negotiated to keep grandfather rights. I say that we should get on and repeal this unnecessary law, as that would allow many more people into the market to drive these sort of vans. This is a particular issue for rural communities, which do not have extensive public transport, because so much community transport relies on volunteers to drive minibuses so that people can get to a variety of activities, and those areas are currently having to pay quite a lot of money to train people to do that. This is a really easy win. I keep being told that primary legislation would be required, but let us do that, if that is what is needed to boost that aspect of productivity.

There is much in the autumn statement of which I am proud, and I commend the Chancellor and the Prime Minister on their extensive work on it. The autumn statement resonates with compassion and foresight. It acknowledges the hardships faced by individuals and businesses alike Our commitment to bolstering our economy while extending support to those most affected by recent upheavals is commendable and a clear demonstration of the principles of a Conservative Government. I commend the resolutions to the whole House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

After 13 long years of Conservative economic failure, Britain is stuck in a cycle of low growth and high taxes, with working people across the country paying the price. This autumn statement was a chance for an economic reset, but instead we got yet another political reset. The Chancellor is, I hope, good at maths, so perhaps he can count how many there have been so far.

It is the Conservatives’ election strategy that has shaped this statement, not the needs of the country, but my constituents will not be fooled by minor tax giveaways in an election year from the same party that has raised their taxes 25 times since 2019—and they are minor giveaways, given that they represent less than a quarter of the personal tax rises that the Conservatives imposed on working people last year, with fiscal drag hitting millions of households. We should be under no illusion: the Tories are still the party of high tax if they massively hike people’s taxes, but then give them a little bit back before an election. Of course, the reason they are a high-tax party is the fact that their record on growth is so poor. If the economy had continued to grow at the rate that it did under the last Labour Government it would now be £150 billion larger, but instead growth in the UK has stagnated in the last 13 years, and is projected to be the lowest in the G7 next year.

When the Conservatives cannot generate the growth to fund public services, they raid the pockets of working people instead, but those people will rightly wonder where their hard-earned money is going, given that the NHS, our schools, local government and the courts are all on their knees. The situation for public services appears set to become bleaker still, given that yesterday's tax cuts are to be funded by a projected £19 billion of cuts in departmental spending—spending cuts that look eerily similar to those made by the now Lord Cameron. The Conservatives are not just resurrecting former Prime Ministers to serve in this Government; they are resurrecting their failed and discredited policies too. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on how and where they envisage these cuts being made—or does he accept that, as the Resolution Foundation has said, the cuts are “implausible” and

“rest on the fiscal fiction”

that higher inflation will not increase public spending? Is not the truth that there is no long-term commitment to these measures, that they are simply a pre-election cover, and that the fiscal black hole they create is likely to be someone else’s problem?

As the Leader of the Opposition asked yesterday, how can a labourer or a nurse contribute to economic growth if they are one of the 7.8 million people on an NHS waiting list in desperate need of an operation? A healthy society and a healthy economy are two sides of the same coin, but the NHS did not receive the support that it needs yesterday, and there are many other public services of which we could say the same. What of local government, for so long the poor relation, ruthlessly targeted by the Conservatives since 2010, with their Liberal Democrat friends complicit at the outset? I should state for the record that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Associations and a former chair of its resources board, as well as being a previous leader of my own local authority, Trafford Council.

For local government as a sector, the autumn statement was wholly depressing. There were no significant new funding announcements, there was nothing new on special educational needs and disability funding, and there was silence on the continuation of the household support fund. There was not a word about public sector pay. My local authority is assuming a 3% pay award, but higher inflation for longer has the potential to affect the 2024-25 pay negotiations. There was no mention of the impact of the living wage increase—welcome as it is—and what it will mean for social care contracts: a 9.8% uplift will blow a £2 million hole in my local authority’s assumptions.

Trafford’s position is not unique, but it is especially acute. Low levels of Government funding mean that we have the lowest spending power of all the 36 metropolitan districts. A recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that Trafford has one of the largest funding shortfalls in relation to need, equivalent to £35 million in comparison with national averages; and, unsurprisingly, it is one of the F20 group of lowest-funded local authorities, with the prospect of a £55 million budget deficit over the next three years. The delivery of meaningful services will become unsustainable in the short term if this position is not addressed for Trafford and councils like it, but it was thin gruel yesterday for local authorities up and down the land, to whom Trafford’s position sounds all too familiar.

It was thin gruel, too, for our broken housing market and our dysfunctional planning system. A desire to speed up business planning applications is welcome, but local authorities simply do not have the planners or the capacity to process the applications, a problem the Chancellor did not acknowledge or do anything to remedy yesterday. If the Government were serious about increasing housing supply, they would reverse their decision to scrap housing targets and build on parts of the green belt that offer nothing in environmental value, but plenty in economic potential. Perhaps we would then start to see the economic growth that we so desperately need.

There was some positive news on housing that I want to acknowledge: I do welcome the increase in local housing allowance rates. It is overdue, but it will be a vital tool in preventing homelessness. However, that is a silver lining among the very, very dark clouds of this autumn statement, because for all the bluster, there is no getting away from the most telling statistic to come out of yesterday. Between 2019 and 2025, families will experience the biggest drop in living standards since records began, and the tax burden as a percentage of GDP will be higher at the end of this Parliament than it was at the start.

[Peter Grant]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for picking up the point about the local housing allowance. Does he agree that if it is a good idea to unfreeze it for one year, it is not a good idea to refreeze it again in the following year?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman has made his own case, but as a keen campaigner on all aspects of our housing crisis, I very much agree with his sentiment.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I have been here for a couple of decades, and I have never known a second-day debate on an autumn statement to involve only one Government Back Bencher. The emptiness of the Chamber reflects that we are at the fag end of this Government, and people realise that. The seriousness of the Government’s intentions in the coming months almost warrants despair among their own supporters, as well as in this House.

I sat through the Chancellor’s statement yesterday, and he set the scene of an economy that has turned the corner and is looking for technology-fuelled sunny uplands. I have been here a while and have listened to previous autumn statements, so I can recognise a pre-election speech when I see one, and that is what it was.

The Prime Minister basically set out the Conservatives’ election strategy the day before, and it is not a novel playbook—it is one they have used consistently. It is the same old Tory strategy. First, there are tax cuts as a pre-election bribe, then it goes on to the scapegoating of some vulnerable group, before making ludicrous claims about Labour’s plans to try to petrify people into not voting for change. Even with the media that we have, I do not think that strategy is going to work this time.

On economic growth, the Chancellor’s image of the economy turning a corner was absolutely shattered when the OBR report was published as soon as he sat down. It massively downgraded the growth forecast for every year of the forecast period. I listened to him talk on the radio this morning about how his investment in the economy will increase GDP by 0.5% over the coming four years. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 0.5% produces about £7 billion of income tax returns to the Government, so there is no way this growth will somehow provide the resources we need to fund our public services.

I doubt any amount of tax cutting will restore confidence in a party that has doubled our debt, brought our public services to their knees and crashed our economy with the madcap escapades of the last two Prime Ministers. The cuts to national insurance were the headline proposal in yesterday’s autumn statement, but in the cold light of day, less than 24 hours later, the analysis shows that all the benefit has been swept away by the continuing freeze on tax thresholds. The IPPR analysis demonstrates that even the national insurance cuts will benefit the highest earners and the richest, and then the energy cap was lifted this morning. There is no way these tax cuts will restore a feelgood factor among the general public.

The most nauseating element of yesterday’s appalling announcement was the scapegoating of the sick, the disabled and those with mental health problems. It is gutter politics. The Conservatives first tried to scapegoat asylum seekers, but that has not worked because, actually, people recognise that asylum seekers are coming to this country from war zones across the world, and they empathise with them. So the Government have now turned on the disabled, the sick and people struggling with their mental health. Hidden in yesterday’s autumn statement is the reality that the Government are cutting £1.2 billion from benefits paid to people with disabilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, it heralds the return of the nasty party.

I met the Public and Commercial Services Union last week, and the chronic staffing crisis in the Department for Work and Pensions means that the implementation of last year’s sanctions policy is floundering because of the massive casework backlogs. Individual members of DWP staff have case loads of 2,000 cases, and obviously the system is collapsing. Loading more work on those workers will intensify the delays and will result—let us be honest—in more stress for the disabled, the sick and those with mental health problems.

Exactly as is predicted by a number of disability organisations, I fear this will push people over the edge. Those of us who were in the House remember what happened when the work capability assessment was first introduced. People were pushed so far over the edge that we saw a rise in the number of people taking their own life.

The Government have ludicrously claimed that Labour’s plan to borrow to invest in greening our economy will somehow push up interest rates and borrowing costs. That is a bit rich coming from the Conservative party, under which the country’s debt has risen. Let me be clear that Labour’s plan to borrow to invest will generate green growth in the economy. It is not like what the Tories have done in the past, which is to borrow for day-to-day expenditure—in other words, borrowing to cover the costs of failure.

The cost of borrowing £28 billion, even at the current high interest rates, is just above £1 billion, which is readily recouped—that is what investment is all about—as a result of the multiplier effect of this investment and the increased tax income it will generate. The comments of even senior Ministers have been inane in the extreme and lower the level of debate on the future of our economy.

I thought the real question yesterday was whether the Chancellor would do the right thing with the additional headroom that the OBR found as a result of inflation, interest rates and rising tax receipts, and where that additional money would go. Last week, I went to a concert by the brilliant Liverpool singer Jamie Webster. He sang a song called “Voice of the Voiceless”. Yesterday’s autumn statement made it clear to me that, as the Chancellor decided where to spend the new money that had been found, the voices of those most in need of those additional resources went unheard. I therefore think Members have a responsibility to be the voice of the voiceless in this debate.

I think we should be the voice of children. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, over 4 million children are currently living in poverty in the United Kingdom, the sixth richest country in the world. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that more than 1 million children are living in and experiencing destitution. Last week, I met people from Buttle UK, the charity supporting children in poverty, and they explained what destitution means. It means children going without the basic essentials needed to eat, stay warm and dry, and keep clean. That is why so many charities, religious groups, trade unions and others have called for a Government—any Government—to prioritise children in poverty for support. One straightforward suggestion is to lift the two-child limit, which would immediately lift 250,000 children out of poverty. This is why so many are campaigning for free school meals, to ensure that our children get at least one decent meal a day. It is also why many of us have called on the Chancellor to restore the £20 that the Government cut from universal credit after the pandemic.

We need to be the voice of disabled people, the sick and the mentally ill, who were under attack yesterday. The new onslaught against disabled people and the sick clearly provided evidence that their voices have been ignored again. If the Government were listening, they would have heard how those receiving benefits have already had to fight their way through a brutal benefits system to secure the help they have gained. The Government would have heard about many of the experiences with the work capability assessment, which has caused so much human suffering and harm—so much so that, as Members may recall, we discovered that the DWP was secretly monitoring coroners’ reports on the suicide of people on benefits. David Cameron has just been reappointed, so I hope he points this out in government now. I remember when a person whose benefits had been cut starved to death in his constituency. The coroner’s report related that to the withdrawal of benefits.

Disability groups are rightly predicting that, as sure as night follows day, this new round of dangerous threats to the benefits of the sick and the disabled, and especially those with mental health problems, will cause serious harm again.

[Peter Grant]

I am reluctant to intervene, as the right hon. Gentleman is, as always, giving a passionate and well-informed speech. Does he share my concern that one inevitable consequence of the propaganda onslaught is that people will be scared to claim the benefits they are entitled to, because they think they will be branded as cheats and fraudsters simply for claiming what is theirs by right?

[John McDonnell]

A wonderful piece of work was undertaken about the role the media and politicians played in stigmatising disabled people. This resulted, exactly as the hon. Gentleman said, in people not coming forward to claim their benefits. It also resulted in their ostracisation in their own community and the hardship that that caused, not only to them, but to their children when they went to school—this stuff is all coming back.

The irony has been pointed out by Members from across the House: wherever someone can work, we want to encourage them to do so and give them all the support they need, but people are being targeted with threats when we have 7.9 million people on the NHS waiting list—these are the very people who are waiting for the treatment to enable them to get back to work. This approach is particularly illogical and brutal. I urge hon. Members to look at the figures: 4 million people are already looking for additional hours of work in our economy, and unemployment has increased by a quarter of a million since the last autumn statement. These people will be struggling to compete for work that does not exist.

I want to be the voice of carers as well. I chair an unpaid carers group; we come together regularly and we have published our manifesto. There are 5 million unpaid carers in our community who are looking after their relatives and living off a miserly carer’s allowance of just under £80 a week. As a result, many of them live in poverty and hardship. The last estimate, in the Carers UK survey, was that they save the country some £160 billion a year. That survey also demonstrated just how many of them are struggling to make ends meet. We did not hear a single word yesterday about these heroes and heroines; there was not a single measure in the autumn statement that will move forward their simple demand for a level of financial support that will lift them out of poverty.

We should also be the voice of the homeless. We now have 105,000 families in our community living in temporary accommodation. Some 131,000 children are being brought up without a secure roof over their heads, often in overcrowded and run-down accommodation—all of us have seen these places, some of which are dangerous to live in. Putting the local housing allowance back to the 30th decile, after freezing it for years and after it having been at the 50th decile only a few years ago, goes nowhere near to giving those families any hope of securing a decent and secure home. What we really need now, as an emergency measure, are rent controls. We also want a massive council house building programme, but what was offered yesterday, in the detail, was funding for 2,400 council homes, at a time when we need hundreds of thousands.

As others have said, we also need to be the voice for public services. The fact that there is no additional funding for them and instead a projected £19 billion cut confirmed that the voices of the nurses, doctors, paramedics, social care workers, teachers, council workers and council leaders themselves went completely unheard. As we have said, there is to be a £4 billion funding cut, which means the erosion of some of the basic services people rely on in order to have some form of quality of life.

To conclude, there is a lot of speculation that the autumn statement presages an early election, and I think it probably does. I pray that it does, because my community cannot take this any more. I have never witnessed such a level of disillusionment with politics, such a lack of hope that things can get better. It is not just generating anger; what worries me more is that it is generating absolute apathy among our communities. There is a great responsibility on our shoulders now to restore that hope and to do so soon. I urge the Government: bring on the election, let the people have their voice, and let us have it as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I hope those on his Front Bench were listening to the contributions from him and some of his fellow Labour Members, because it is important that we talk about plans to remedy things and help the poorest in our society.

This is clearly a zombie Budget from a zombie Government —a Budget so good that, as others have said, the Back Benches on the Government side are practically empty. If it was meant to be a pre-election Budget, it is a pre-election Budget that is not generating any confidence among Conservative Back Benchers, because none of them wants to be here to debate it and try to talk it up.

It is a bold Chancellor who tells us that he is cutting taxes when we still have the highest tax burden in 70 years, with more tax rises on the way, and at the same time living standards continue to fall. Just today, Ofgem has announced that the energy cap will increase again in January—it will still be approximately double what energy costs were two years ago. It is little wonder that the OBR predicts that living standards this year will be 3.5% lower than before the pandemic.

The Chancellor was bold enough to talk about wage growth, but let us look at the detail. The Resolution Foundation confirmed that it will take until 2028 to get overall wages back to 2008 levels—two lost decades of wage growth. At the next general election, it will be the first time ever that household incomes have been lower at the end of a Parliament than they were at the start.

It is clear that the Budget does nothing for the approximately 6.3 million fuel-poor households. Ofgem has confirmed record cumulative energy debts of £2.6 billion, so we are still in the grip of a cost of energy crisis. The Tories tell us that we should be grateful for the energy support package, which cost in the order of £40 billion, but let us look at the example of Norway, which is drawing a further £30 billion from its sovereign wealth fund this year alone. That will not even make a dent in its £1.1 trillion sovereign wealth fund—yes, £1.1 trillion, which makes it the biggest such fund in the world. Energy-rich Scotland still exports six times more oil and gas than it consumes, and yet we are supposed to be grateful that the UK as a whole is planning to slightly reduce its £2.5 trillion debt. All those oil and gas revenues have been frittered away through short-term planning. Norway did not create its fund until the 1990s, so it is a disgrace that we do not have a North sea legacy to fall back on in these hard times.

We are also supposed to be grateful about the 2% cut to national insurance contributions, and that the Tories have—so they claim—reduced inflation from 11.4%, even though they were partly responsible for the high rate because of the disastrous mini-Budget and the impacts of Brexit. It is curious that the Government tell us that they are not responsible for high inflation as it is a global issue, and that high interest rates are set by the wholly independent Bank of England, but now that inflation is falling, we are to believe from the autumn statement that the Government’s actions have brought it down. The Government appear to be responsible for inflation rates only when it is good news and they are going down—that is quite a trick.

Let me return to household energy. It is a scandal that about a fifth of UK households are living in fuel poverty. It is a bigger scandal that energy-rich Scotland has fuel poverty at all, as well as the highest energy bills and some of the highest standing charges just to access the energy grid. Those standing charges mean people cannot afford to heat their homes properly. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that 2 million people are switching off their fridges and freezers intermittently to save on energy costs. This autumn statement will do nothing to help those people—or, if it does, any money that goes into their pockets in January will quickly be removed in April as the tax threshold freeze means more people become liable for income tax. Households are paying on average £800 a year more on energy costs than two years ago, but the warm home discount scheme has increased from £140 to £150 a year. It is plain: the sums do not add up. However, the Government have also reneged on their pledge for a social tariff to help the most vulnerable with their energy costs.

Let us look at the national insurance cut in the round. Although hard-working people, especially those on the eligibility threshold, will of course welcome having to pay less, it is unfortunately no coincidence that the £19 billion package to support the cut will be offset by £19 billion of public spending cuts that are still to be determined. Who is most affected by public spending cuts? Of course, it is the lowest paid and the poorest in our society. Such spending cuts make a further mockery of the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda. The budget of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities was halved in the statement, which says everything about levelling-up targets. If the Government introduce a tax cut via emergency legislation, only to pay for it through future departmental cuts, they cannot possibly claim that that is part of responsible Government taking long-term decisions for the economy. It is quite clearly a gimmick to capture headlines.

In Scotland, of course, we are also meant to be grateful for the Barnett consequentials, which have already turned out to be lower than was announced. The Scottish block grant itself is being cut in real terms in the autumn statement. Next year, the grant increases from £35.8 billion to £36.9 billion, but if we compare that increase with headline inflation from September, it is clearly a real-terms budget cut of about 3.5%, or £1.3 billion, for Scotland.

Then there is the capital budget allocated to the Scottish Government, which is being cut outright from £6.2 billion to £5.6 billion in two years’ time. That is not even a real-terms budget cut, but a hugely damaging slashing of the budget, at a time when the Scottish Tories demand that the Scottish Government invest in all sorts of infrastructure projects. I am sure that the Scottish Tories will recognise this conundrum of a cut budget, demand that the capital budget is restored, and recognise the pressures on the Scottish Government, let alone the inflationary pressures on projects that are already under way. [Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) points out, no Scottish Tories are even here to talk about the statement.

On infrastructure, we are yet again being let down by the lack of progress on agreeing an electricity cap and floor mechanism for pumped storage hydro. That means further delays to SSE’s Coire Glas scheme and Drax’s Cruachan dam extension. We keep hearing that the Government want to unlock private investment. In pumped storage hydro, private investment in the order of £2 billion to £2.5 billion would be unlocked by agreeing an electricity export mechanism for those schemes. That would create jobs in the highlands of Scotland and, importantly, provide better balance for the grid, reducing bills overall. Why the continued intransigence from the Government on pumped storage hydro?

Despite talk of investment in green energy, the statement and the Green Book do not mention energy storage even once—that is a dereliction of duty. Tidal stream, in which Scotland leads the way, is not mentioned either. Looking at the statement in detail, the so-called £4.5 billion manufacturing investment and the £960 million green growth accelerator do not have corresponding budget lines, so those announcements are clearly recycled announcements, in the finest style of this Government.

As we have heard, the indicative blank cheque for nuclear was mentioned once again. We have the fantasy of small modular reactors, but they are not actually small. First, they exceed the industry definition in terms of generation capacity, and secondly, they are the size of two football pitches, which is not exactly a small footprint. The terminology is designed to make them sound small and cosy when they are anything but.

Let us look at the evidence on the development of these projects. The most advanced SMR project in the world, NuScale in Utah, has just been shelved because capital costs have increased to $9 billion—the equivalent of over £7 billion. That is evidence that SMRs are too expensive to progress, but the UK Government are pretending they can deliver them for about £2 billion per reactor. That makes no sense, especially when nuclear technology is generally more expensive in the UK anyway.

We now come to my hobby-horse: Sizewell C. Despite the cost of Hinkley Point C increasing from £18 billion to £33 billion, the rampant inflation we still have and Sizewell C being built on an area subject to coastal erosion and flood risk, we are told that it will magically provide value for money and be cheaper than Hinkley Point C. It is truly delusional. No pension funds want to invest in Sizewell C, and the Government have the begging bowl out. Despite introducing the regulated asset base model and transferring further risk to bill payers, they are still struggling to raise finance.

It is time that the Government ended this charade. It is bad enough that over £1 billion has already been spent just on design development for Sizewell C. That is £1 billion that could have been spent on energy efficiency measures, infrastructure or even further energy support schemes.

[Peter Grant]

Is my hon. Friend surprised or disappointed, or is it purely to be expected, that there is not a single word about insulation or energy efficiency measures anywhere in the autumn statement?

[Alan Brown]

All of the above. It is infuriating. If the Government were to listen, even the energy supply companies want them to invest more in energy efficiency and insulation. Right now, in the ECO4 scheme—energy company obligation 4—the companies cannot even find the requisite number of properties to upgrade. As that goes on, we are losing the supply chain instead of building it up.

If we really want green growth, green jobs and lower energy bills, it is perfectly obvious that more money should be spent on energy efficiency. Ironically, the Government never listen to that, but they should listen to the third sector and the energy companies who praise the Scottish Government for their direct investment in support of energy efficiency programmes. In contrast to the Government’s blank cheque for nuclear, Scottish renewable projects still have to pay the grid charging penalty, making it harder for them to compete in the contract for difference auctions.

This autumn statement means that we still have an incoherent energy policy. It does nothing for Scotland. Hard-working families are still going to suffer, living standards are still falling, and the disabled are now threatened with losing support unless they are forced into jobs not of their choosing. It is not difficult to choose a different path for Scotland—it is a path that other smaller countries in western Europe are already on, so why not Scotland? It is time we took that different route.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Gareth Davies)]

I think this is my first opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) to his position, and I wish him well in it, but obviously not too well.

I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who opened this debate brilliantly. He is someone who knows business because he comes from business. I also want to thank all right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who have spoken for their very detailed and thoughtful contributions, and I will try to respond to as many points as I can.

Before I do that, I want to reflect on the measures that we are here to discuss and which were set out in the Chancellor’s autumn statement yesterday. I take the view that everyone in this House wants the best for their communities and the people of this country, and I think we broadly agree on several points in that regard. I think we agree that we want a thriving economy, with well-paid reliable work available in every corner of the country for years to come. We want households to be better off than they were in years gone by, and we want opportunities for everyone to progress in life and to provide for the people they care about. If we can agree on that, I would hope that we all agree that this is an autumn statement that delivers, and principally delivers growth.

This autumn statement announces a range of measures to grow the supply side of our economy by supporting increased business investment. Taken together, these measures will build over time to raise business investment by some £20 billion per year and reduce the business investment gap that has grown to what we have today. It is because we are backing business—British businesses—that our economy and our investment levels will rise. It is business that creates jobs, which raise household incomes. It is businesses that design and build the technologies of tomorrow, and level up our towns, our committee and our villages. It is businesses that contribute billions and billions in tax revenue, which pays for our public services. To back our businesses is to back our economy and our country’s prospects for the future.

Businesses are vital to our future technology and our future ambitions when it comes to net zero, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The £4.5 billion we are making available to our strategic manufacturing sectors over five years will mean more zero-emission vehicles. It will mean more aerospace and life sciences technologies, and more green energy solutions built right here in this United Kingdom. We are providing £960 million for the green industries growth accelerator, pushing even further on our advantages in offshore wind, nuclear, CCUS and hydrogen. I just say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who is a long-standing campaigner on energy, that we do need a balanced mix in our energy provision, and that is key to our national security as part of our energy security.

Businesses are vital for our high streets, so we have extended the 75% business rates discount for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses for another year, saving the average pub more than £12,800 next year. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) not just for the speech he made, but for the campaign he led on that measure. Businesses are vital for spreading opportunities, so my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has extended the investment zones programme and the freeport tax reliefs from five years to 10 years. He announced plans to set up a new £150 million investment opportunity fund to capitalise further investment in that programme. That goes alongside the 13 new investment zones—in west Yorkshire, the east midlands, the west midlands, Greater Manchester, Wrexham and Flintshire and several other places—which will generate billions of pounds in investment and create thousands of jobs throughout the country.

However, what is most eye-catching for all businesses is that we have listened to the asks of the CBI, Make UK, Siemens and more than 200 business leaders and industry bodies who said that the single most transformational thing we could do for business and investment growth was make full expensing permanent, so that is exactly what we did. It is something we can only do because of the strong economic position we have built in this country, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) for her support for this measure. Every £1 million a company invests as a result of this measure means they will get £250,000 off their tax bill the very same year. This gives us the lowest headline corporation tax in the G7, as well as the most generous plant and machinery capital allowance anywhere. Again, the OBR says that this will make a huge contribution to our economy, increasing annual investment by £3 billion a year and a total of £14 billion in the forecast period.

While the United States, Canada and Australia are all dispensing with full expensing, we are making this a cornerstone of our economic approach, giving a clear welcome to international businesses that want to come here, set up and employ our people. Coupled with the headline recommendations of the Harrington review, this can make the UK a brilliant place for international investment—even more so than it already is today.

But our plans are not only for large businesses. By cutting class 4 national insurance by 1%—again, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—and abolishing the class 2 national insurance entirely, we are saving some 2 million self-employed people an average of £350 a year from April. Together with our national insurance cut for 27 million workers, this is proof that, whether people work for themselves or for someone else, under this Government work will always be rewarded.

We on the Conservative side of the House believe in the dignity of work and the security of a regular pay cheque. That is why we did not just cut national insurance; we have increased the national living wage by a record amount. But we know that inflation has hit families hard. It has hit individuals and businesses throughout this country. Inflation makes everybody poorer. It was caused by a global pandemic and a global energy shock, and although we have seen it come down, we need to keep on going.

The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and others have all raised concerns about living standards, and I share them. It is why we have increased pensions by 8.5%, as referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), it is why we have uprated benefits by 6.7%, and it is why we have uprated the local housing allowance. That is on top of the £94 billion on energy support and the £900 cost of living payments that are going out throughout the country.

[Peter Grant]

Is it correct that the prediction that we are going to see the biggest fall in living standards that most of us have ever lived through is after all the things in the autumn statement the Minister has just referred to, so even taking into account all the good measures he has mentioned today and his colleague the Chancellor outlined yesterday, people are going to be poorer, with the biggest drop in living standards that any of us has ever seen?

[Gareth Davies]

As I have said, we know that families have suffered through a period of dramatic inflation. It peaked at 11%. We made a commitment at the start of this year to cut it in half and we met that commitment last week. The No. 1 thing we can do to make people feel better is bring down inflation. The provisions in the autumn statement will undoubtedly put money in the pockets of the people who need it most, but ultimately on this side of the House we believe in the dignity of work; we believe that the best route out of poverty is through a job, and the growth that we will boost through these measures will help achieve that.

We have made inflation our top priority and we have delivered on that commitment, as I just mentioned to the hon. Gentleman. I want to pick up, however, on one point raised throughout the debate, not least from the Opposition, who implied that the Government had done nothing to bring down inflation and that was nothing to do with this Government. I want to stress that the International Monetary Fund disagrees with them. The IMF has said that we have taken decisive action to bring down inflation, complementing the Bank of England. The Bank of England has the primary monetary policy tool of interest rates, but we in the Treasury and across Government have taken incredibly difficult decisions to ensure that we do not exacerbate inflation. We have also introduced measures such as the energy price guarantee, which essentially paid for half of people’s energy bills across the country. That, by the way, was referenced by the OBR as knocking 2% off headline inflation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alan Brown]

rose—

[Peter Grant]

rose—

[Gareth Davies]

I do not know how they want to fight it out. I will take the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).

[Peter Grant]

On the question of dependency on gas, the Minister’s country might be dependent on imported gas, but can he explain to constituents in Scotland how a country that has more energy than it needs should be so badly affected when the price of that energy increases?

[Gareth Davies]

I simply point out that that did not stop the Scottish Government accepting our energy price guarantee for Scottish households, where we paid half of energy Bills. However, the hon. Member makes a broader point about energy supply. We on the Government Benches fully support the Scottish oil and gas industry. We believe that we will need oil and gas for years to come, and we will support the 200,000 jobs that the industry supports.

Non-disclosure Agreements in the Workplace

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller]

The hon. Member makes an important point about the use of NDAs by large public bodies. He mentioned the BBC, and I could go on to mention other media organisations. Indeed, NDAs have been used routinely in this place in the past. Mr Speaker and others, however, have ensured that that practice has stopped—it is possible to stop such things, if there is a will from the top.

The Government already know the importance of that point. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), with the backing of the Department for Education, put in place a voluntary university pledge to stop the use of NDAs in university settings. It became law under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, through an amendment made on 7 February, so Parliament has had its say and the Government have accepted that say, but only in connection with universities.

The pledge, when it was introduced, protected students, staff and others from the use of NDAs in cases involving sexual harassment, discrimination and other forms of misconduct and bullying. If such a ban is good enough for universities, I hope that the Minister will agree that we can see no reason why employees in other sectors should not be protected in the same way.

The Government must look at how they could provide the same safeguards as the universities now have across every workplace in Britain against agreements drawn up by lawyers and those not drawn up by lawyers, which I believe to be the vast majority. As part of the pathway that the Government will follow in the coming months to achieve that sort of change, I hope that they will also support my amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, which would recognise people who have signed NDAs as victims too, for consistency.

NDAs are of particular concern to Parliament and parliamentarians, because they are disproportionately used to silence women and minority groups, flying in the face of anti-discrimination laws, which have been in place for decades. Women report signing NDAs at six times the rate for men, black women at three times the rate for white women, and, interestingly, at 40% of the rate for people with disabilities. People with disabilities suffer such NDAs far more than anyone else.

A third of the respondents to the Can’t Buy My Silence data collection in the UK are believed to have signed an NDA. Perhaps worse, another third did not go ahead with seeking the justice they were owed, because they anticipated having to sign an NDA and did not want to—for fear of the consequences perhaps. In their 2020 sexual harassment survey, the Government themselves, through the Government Equalities Office, reported that 48% of those who reported workplace sexual harassment were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement about their experience, whether staying at the organisation or exiting it. The Government are aware of the scale of the problem and they have legislated already, as a result of actions taken here in Parliament. We cannot let the status quo stand.

Given the nature of NDAs—their silencing properties and the secrecy that surrounds them—only as a result of the bravery of some who have endured NDAs do we know the damage that they are causing. I pay tribute to all those people—such as those in the Public Gallery and those Members—who have spoken out bravely publicly or privately on this matter. That includes the public reporting of the Independent Television News newsroom incidents, including multiple reports of NDAs by “Channel 4 News” and “Channel 5 News”.

A particular concern—the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has already made the point about media outlets—is that organisations that provide news for millions of viewers are using NDAs to cover up allegations of sexual harassment, disability discrimination, maternity discrimination and much more. Even after public reporting, those are yet to be resolved. The concern is that we rely on such news organisations to expose the truth, and yet all summer we have seen more and more media reports about the toxic environments that have flourished.

I too have been approached by a number of whistleblowers at a number of ITN newsrooms. Why? Because of the lack of transparency and the fear of speaking up created by the use of apparently legal confidentiality clauses or NDAs. I believe that NDAs have no place in British workplaces if they stop people from freely exercising their rights under the law.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend the right hon. Lady on an outstanding speech; I have no doubt that the rest will be equally outstanding. Does she agree that it is utterly hypocritical for the owners of news agencies, whether in broadcast or print media, to hide behind secrecy when it comes to how they treat their own employees? They make a living from exposing the things going on in other companies and from getting information from Governments that Governments do not want to disclose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) on setting the scene so well and all those hon. and right hon. Members who have made significant and helpful contributions. I wish to add my support to what the right hon. Lady has put forward and to give, as I always do, a Northern Ireland perspective on what we are discussing. It is good to be in Westminster Hall and back after the summer break, so to speak.

The right hon. Lady has raised this issue with us today and in the past. I have been in attendance to hear many of her comments about the dangers that non-disclosure agreements can pose in the workplace specifically. In theory, the agreements are supposed to be used as a legally binding contract that establishes a confidential relationship—if only that was what they were used for. As everyone knows, they have been misrepresented and used for other purposes, and that is why the debate is taking place. They can ensure secrecy and confidentiality for sensitive information, but have been seen more recently as a weapon to keep people quiet. It is crucial that the agreements are used correctly, so it is great to be here to discuss them and highlight some issues as well.

In May 2023, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 received Royal Assent. It included provisions to prohibit higher education providers and their colleges from entering into non-disclosure agreements with staff members, students and visiting speakers in relation to complaints of sexual misconduct, abuse or harassment. That was backed in 2022 by the then Minister for the Economy in the Northern Ireland Assembly and my party colleague, Gordon Lyons MLA. Queen’s University, Ulster University, Stranmillis University College, St Mary’s University College and the Open University in Northern Ireland have also signed up to the pledge.

I warmly welcome the Can’t Buy My Silence campaign and everything it stands for, which is ensuring that NDAs are only used for their intended purpose of protecting sensitive information in relation to a trade or a company. The idea that NDAs are used to silence those who are victims of bullying or misconduct within a business setting is totally disgraceful. We all have offices and staff, and most importantly we have a duty of care to each other to protect and listen to any concerns that our staff have. I find it implausible and difficult to imagine a situation where using an NDA for dealing with misconduct is a sensible idea for any party ever—I cannot comprehend it.

Some 95% of respondents to a survey carried out by the CBMS campaign stated that signing an abusive NDA had a profound impact on their mental health, so there are side effects as well. I certainly agree with the calls to extend the ban on abusive NDAs to more sectors. They have been used to silence people not only in universities, but in workplaces and other professional settings. There is a complete lack of legal oversight too, where victims do not have representation from a regulated legal professional and abusive NDAs are internal within an organisation or business.

A workplace should be an environment where staff members feel safe and can work to the best of their ability with no fear or worry of advantage being taken that is backed up by unhealthy and ill-thought-out NDAs. Another useful point is that banning the use of abusive NDAs helps to stop repeat offenders, as within the workplace there is no protection against abusive behaviour. A predator or someone who inflicts abuse on someone else has the underlying protection of an NDA, knowing that the information will not be shared. Banning NDAs gives predators no way out and would stop their behaviour, or they would risk being let go or even prosecuted.

[Peter Grant]

On the question of protecting repeat offenders, does the hon. Member see the massive injustice in this? A victim who speaks out is likely to be denied employment opportunities for the rest of their life, but a rogue employer or director can be protected, get a golden handshake and work on a different board of directors within a week and carry on with their nefarious behaviour. That degree of disparity is a massive injustice that has to be addressed.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no one present who does not understand that. When someone wants to do their best at work and is taken advantage of by an employer, that is unacceptable. I hope that when the Minister responds to our comments, he will grasp what we are trying to say. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke and the Mother of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who made a powerful intervention, proposed a legislative way forward and set the scene very well.

I support the points made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke and would be happy to support this matter further. We must ensure that NDAs are used for the correct purpose and not to hide and cover up nasty and disgraceful behaviour in the workplace that would otherwise go unpunished. I have hope that through this campaign we can do better to protect people from such coercion and behaviour and do more to ensure that the workplace is a healthy and happy environment. That is a goal worth trying to achieve. It would be better for everyone at work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I was almost tempted to say to the hon. Lady, “Just carry on, and I won’t bother summing up.” I do not think that I have ever seen agreement among so many speakers in a debate, and I certainly do not expect to say anything that will change that.

I am not entirely sure what the comment by the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was about. If her point was about having to keep apologising to Front-Bench males for things that have to be said, she does not ever have to apologise to me for pointing out that I am part of the 49% who have caused most of this problem. Most of the speakers today are part of the 51% who have been on the receiving end of the problem, though they have not always been; there was a time when NDAs were routinely abused between powerful men to cover up each other’s crimes and frauds. Most NDAs now are being used by powerful men to silence and victimise vulnerable women, and that is the abuse of the system that must be dealt with most urgently.

[Ms Harman]

The hon. Member has demonstrated himself to be a male ally, and we would not underestimate the importance of having male allies on this. There is an opportunity for the Minister to be not a force of resistance but a male ally and to follow the example of the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).

[Peter Grant]

When I write my memoirs after I retire in a year or so, I will make sure to point out the time I got an honourable mention in dispatches by no less a person than the Mother of the House.

Just to reflect on some of what has been said, there is an absolutely legitimate need for confidentiality between employer and employee. Nobody is questioning that. Even after an employee has left employment, the employer is entitled to expect a degree of confidentiality and respect. The duty of care between an employer and employee in both directions does not just suddenly stop when the employee leaves.

But that duty of care—that right of confidentiality—can never, ever be justified if it is being used to prevent an employee from exercising the rights that this Parliament has given them as a matter of law: their rights to raise a grievance, to claim unfair dismissal and to get a fair hearing through the appropriate channels. It can never be justified if its intention is to cover up criminal conduct or other unlawful behaviour. In a great number of the cases that we have heard of—and no doubt many others that we have not heard of—where NDAs have been used to silence victims of workplace harassments, the behaviour is well above the threshold that constitutes criminal assault, and in almost all the other ones, it is well above the threshold that constitutes unlawful, unacceptable behaviour, so in almost every case we are talking about today, NDAs are being used to pervert the course of justice. We know that the law is being misused in this way; it is time to put that right.

We are not going to, in the next few years, address all the issues about mistreatment at work, or all the ways that mistreatment can be perpetrated and allowed to continue, but we should certainly be carrying on with the progress that has been made already and address as many as possible. Given the degree of agreement across the House, I hope the Minister will be listening and recognise that it this is an issue to be taken on quickly, because it is that will get unanimous—or near-unanimous—support across the whole House.

The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) mentioned the part that some professional societies have played. I think we need to get stronger with them as well. A number of professional regulators or chartered institutes should be told, “We want you to put into the code of professional ethics that knowingly misusing an NDA is gross professional misconduct, and that people will be struck off as a lawyer or banned from using the continuous professional development logo on their headed notepaper if they are found to be behaving in this way.”

I think that deliberately exploiting the fact that an employee probably does not fully understand their rights—that the employee is scared and wants to get away from the situation all together—to cajole them into signing something that is clearly against their interests is serious enough to be a criminal matter, rather than just a matter of employment law or of private civil law. It should not need the employee to find a lawyer who will represent them and take their case through the civil courts. Employers, business managers and company directors who deliberately exploit an employee’s ignorance and fear would be committing a criminal offence. They should be facing criminal sanctions, rather than, as has just been mentioned, a civil settlement that some would not notice if it disappeared out of their pockets every day.

Although I welcome the progress that has been made in the universities sector, and commend those who have brought forward private Members’ Bills to try to address these issues, we have not got time to go through one sector at a time, because while we are dealing with one sector, more and more people will be victimised in others.

I must say to the Minister, although I know that it has not been in his gift for all that long a time, why does it have to be left to private Members’ Bills? When the Government committed four years ago to legislate for this, why has nothing happened yet? It is not because there has not been enough Government time. There have been days when the House has collapsed three, four or five hours early, or days when the Whips have been running around, desperately trying to get people into the Chamber to intervene because the Government had reasons for not wanting the business to collapse before the advertised moment of interruption. If the Government were willing to put as much political determination into this as into other things, we would have it on the statute book already, but we do not. What better opportunity is there for a Minister to make their mark a few weeks before the King’s Speech?

The debate could not have been better timed—it is an opportunity for the Minister to make his mark. Who knows, he might be back as a Minister in the next Parliament. Nothing is guaranteed, although some things could be regarded as surprising, if the same party comes back into office—not the Minister personally, whom I have no doubt does a great job. Elections are never done deals until the votes are counted, so we never know; it might still be him or one of his colleagues after the election.

Mention has been made of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which I remember being a huge fan of when it first came out. Previously, I worked in a finance position at the Fife health board. I had stories that I wanted to tell, but there was no one I could tell them to. Eventually I did; the stories were denied, but a few years later Fife health board ran into a financial black hole of £4 million at the time—in today’s money, probably up to £10 million. I had seen it coming, but I could not get anyone to listen to me.

Under the Public Interest Disclosure Act, someone else in such a position now would be able to ensure that the necessary people were made aware of it. That, however, applies only to disclosures by some people of some kinds of information to some recipients in certain circumstances; it is not a free-for-all. At the very least, we need to extend the Act to cover people who are not employed directly or are third parties, for example. We need to amend the law to make it explicit that anything that would be protected where someone is a contractor, supplier, business colleague or whatever continues to be protected afterwards.

We must remember that the Act explicitly does not protect vindictive or malicious disclosures. It does not protect someone who is touting a story around the tabloids to see which will pay them most. It does not protect those kinds of disclosures; it only protects disclosures where there is a genuine belief that the person is acting in the public interest, where there is a need to disclose in order to prevent criminal activity or serious damage to the public interest. Surely the same standard should apply after someone has ceased to be an employee. Surely it is right that an employee—or someone who is in effect an employee, because they work through an agency, on a zero-hours contract or whatever—even after they are no longer being paid by the employer, should still have the right to go to a recognised recipient, which is usually the relevant regulator or statutory body, to say: “This is what is happening in that organisation. I think that you need to take action.”

Before I wind up, I will give one example. Not surprisingly, we have focused on the misuse of NDAs to cover up cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault. I have heard one or two examples where they are used in other circumstances. I want to talk briefly about Rhona Malone, a police officer in Scotland. By all accounts, she was a dedicated and professional police officer, who should have had a bright career in front of her. She did, until she applied to join the Police Scotland firearms unit. She was told that she could not, because women cannot be firearms officers. She raised a grievance, but people tried to silence her: they offered her an NDA with an undisclosed, but frankly insulting, level of compensation. She stood her ground and took Police Scotland to a tribunal. Police Scotland has been ordered to pay the best part of £1 million in damages as a result.

I cannot go too much into the details of the argument, because I understand that one of the officers who testified at the tribunal has now been charged with perjury. The thing has become much more serious, and a number of things have come out. The reason she was not allowed to train as a firearms officer was that, in the eyes of senior people in Police Scotland, women are not capable of dealing with the physical demands of being a firearms officer or women on their period might get irrational so could not be trusted with a firearm.

Surely the person who exposed the fact that those attitudes were accepted in one of the major law enforcement agencies in these islands should be thanked. Surely she should be in line for an honour. Why on earth was she forced to leave the career to which she had dedicated herself? Why is possibly one of the best senior police officers of the future not there any more? What a loss to policing in Scotland and elsewhere. Yes, she had compensation, and yes, it is quite right that it should have been punitive libel, because how she was treated was utterly despicable, but why did no one senior in Police Scotland step in at some point to say, “We should not be trying to buy the silence of this officer. We should be sitting down to speak to this officer and to say thank you, because she has exposed something in our organisation that is utterly unacceptable, whether in a public or a private sector organisation”?

There is nothing that anyone has said in the Chamber today that I would meet with anything other than wholesale agreement. I suspect that the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), will also agree with everything that has been said. I sincerely hope that when the Minister speaks he will commit to agreeing in not only his words but his actions. As I have said before, we are coming up to the King’s Speech, and some of us will be listening very carefully to what is in that speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) for securing this debate and for her long-standing and effective campaigning in the area of non-disclosure agreements—she will remember that I engaged with that as a Back Bencher—and the negative effect they can have when used inappropriately. I thank hon. Members across the House for their very valuable and passionate contributions.

These agreements, which are also known as confidentiality clauses, can be used in a variety of contexts and contracts—for example, to protect commercially sensitive information. However, I will restrict my comments to the area of concern, which, as Members have discussed, is NDAs used in settlement agreements in cases of discrimination or harassment.

The Government have already taken significant steps to prevent the use of NDAs in the higher education sector to protect students, who are in a particularly vulnerable position as they have moved away from family and support networks for the first time. In January 2022, we introduced a world-leading pledge, with the campaign group Can’t Buy My Silence, that commits higher education providers to voluntarily ending the use of NDAs in cases of sexual misconduct. As of 1 September, 84 providers, covering almost two thirds of students, have signed the pledge.

The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 goes further and bans the use of NDAs in cases of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and other forms of bullying and harassment in higher education. It is expected to take effect in 2024, and I recognise the important contributions made by Members here today—my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips)—throughout the passage of that Bill.

As a Minister in the Department for Business and Trade, I know that good employers will look to tackle bad behaviour head-on and improve their organisational culture and practice, rather than attempting to cover it up, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) clearly outlined. Organisations that do not treat such complaints in the way that he described are, in my experience, missing an opportunity.

Members of this House and organisations such as Can’t Buy My Silence have brought to light examples of where NDAs have been drafted to intimidate employees from making disclosures to anyone, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon).

It is important to note that there are existing legal limits on the use of NDAs in the employment context. Some key ones were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson)—I thank her again for all the work she does on the all-party group on whistleblowing—and by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who talked about the seven NHS staff. An NDA cannot prevent a worker from blowing the whistle. That means that an NDA would be unenforceable if it stopped a worker from making a protected disclosure about wrongdoing, for example, to a lawyer or certain regulatory bodies or other prescribed persons for whistleblowing purposes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle pointed out that the current whistleblowing regime has limited scope—I think those were her words—and, as she knows, we are now undertaking a review, which will conclude by the end of this year. Indeed, officials involved in that review are in the Chamber today, so they will have heard her points clearly.

[Peter Grant]

We all understand that an NDA cannot prevent an employee or an ex-employee from making certain kinds of disclosures, but that is no good if the former employee does not know that. Does the Minister agree that we should change the law to require every NDA to say explicitly, on the face of the document, that it does not apply to particular kinds of disclosures, so that the former employee who has a copy of the agreement knows exactly what rights they still have?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come on to some other points on that issue, including on the guidance that we have given to ACAS in that area.

NDAs cannot prevent workers from reporting a crime to the police or from co-operating in a criminal investigation, because such a clause would be unenforceable—[Interruption.] I may have misheard what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, but it is very important that anybody listening to this debate, who is considering what their rights are, knows very clearly that such an agreement cannot prevent them from reporting a crime in this area.

Furthermore, the use of an NDA by an employer could amount to a criminal offence—for example, if it is an attempt by the employer to pervert the course of justice or conceal a criminal offence. Independent legal advice is a requirement for settlement agreements to be valid.

In 2019, the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy consulted on the misuse of NDAs in an employment context. The consultation followed evidence found by the Women and Equalities Committee that individual workers may not be aware of their existing statutory rights and may be intimidated into pursuing claims even where the NDA is unenforceable—a point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon. Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke does very important work in that area.

The consultation also heard evidence that individuals are pressured into signing NDAs without the appropriate legal advice, and therefore do not understand that their NDA is unenforceable. That is why the Government took action in developing extensive guidance, which was published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and ACAS. It is clear that NDAs should not prevent individuals from making disclosures to the police and medical or legal professionals.

We have already legislated to prevent higher education providers using NDAs, as I said. We are keen to see how that works in practice, and it will come into force in 2024. The Government held a consultation on the matter in a wider context in 2019. We all agree that these agreements should not be used to intimidate individuals or conceal criminal conduct or illegal wrongdoing, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I point out to him that it is in the capability of the Northern Ireland Administration to implement that in Northern Ireland if they choose, with the matter being devolved to Northern Ireland.

Tackling Loneliness and Connecting Communities

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has just done the very thing that I knew she would do—well done to her. I know that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for Northern Ireland, but it is a pleasure to see him in his place given his range of portfolios. When he speaks, I know that he will encapsulate all the requests we put forward. Whenever we want to ask the Minister something, he has an open door. It is always easy to ask for something when we know we have a Minister who will respond positively.

The Northern Ireland Assembly also pointed out that:

“There are approximately 25,000 individual farms with an average farm size of 41 hectares; this is the smallest in the UK. A key characteristic of farming in Northern Ireland is that 70% of the agricultural area here is defined as ‘less favoured’; this brings challenges in terms of successful farming.”

It also brings many other challenges. Northern Ireland, where one in five adults has a mental health condition at any time, has a 25% higher overall prevalence of mental illness than England. It also has the highest suicide rate in the United Kingdom, at 16.4 per 100,000 people, compared to 10.3 in England, 9.2 in Wales and 14.5 in Scotland. Prescription costs per head for depression in Northern Ireland are £1.71 compared to 41p in Scotland. Those are not just stats; they are evidence.

Northern Ireland is telling the tale of the detrimental impact on people’s mental health that I believe is partly because so many people feel so alone. The quarantine period during covid absolutely exacerbated that. I say this in fun, but the longest time my wife and I had spent together in our lives was during covid. We are married for 35 years, by the way. So covid did bring some benefits—at least I thought so; I hope my wife is of the same opinion! Whatever the case may be, there were too many who were isolated and alone. While covid restrictions have mercifully eased, for some people the ache of loneliness has not. I am so thankful for the community and residents groups who attempted to step into the breach.

The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to Men’s Sheds. We have had a proliferation of Men’s Sheds, as I want to illustrate in my contribution. I recently watched a video of a Men’s Shed learning to play the ukulele. Those of us of a certain generation will know what that is, but those who are younger, like the hon. Member for Batley and Spen and others, might not. These men were from the Glen housing estate, and the camaraderie between them was clear to see. When I looked at the men in that video, I saw men who had been recently widowed or who had lost their jobs. In the Men’s Shed, there were hurting men who were healing simply by being with other men and focusing their minds on living and not just existing. That is so important.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I do not know if it is a universal practice in Men’s Sheds, but I know that in the Glenrothes Men’s Shed, one of the absolute rules is that at tea time they stop what they are doing, go and sit down with everybody and have a cup of tea. For many, that is the most important part of the day. Is that a standard feature in the Men’s Sheds in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency? If not, does he think it would be a good idea for more workplaces to adopt a similar rule?

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whenever anyone goes into a Men’s Shed there is a cup of tea and a biscuit—it might be a Fox’s biscuit or another biscuit; probably more likely to be a Jaffa Cake down where we are, but whatever it may be, it is about the camaraderie—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you very much, Dr Huq. I am pleased to begin summing up this debate.

In 2007, I went very quickly from being a senior auditor in one of Scotland’s smallest local authorities, which is responsible for about five people, to being the leader of Scotland’s third biggest local authority, which is responsible for 20,000 people. About two weeks in, I had to speak to the senior management team to teach them about leadership. I thought I was a bit of a con or a charlatan then. I am now trying to sum up a debate about loneliness among two of the possible three or four people in the land who have done more than most to help us recognise what loneliness is and how it should be addressed, so I pay tribute to them. I know it is traditional, when summing up, to commend the mover of the motion and other speakers, but the contributions of the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), among others, today and to the wider debate about loneliness should be recognised. The speech by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen was wonderfully upbeat and positive, given the time of year and the subject. I thank her greatly for that.

I always have to check and write down the constituencies represented. I do not know whether anyone has realised that represented here we have Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, and that the English constituencies are scattered all over England. We also have four different political parties, and nobody has disagreed with anybody. That is something positive we can take out a debate about a still major public health crisis in all our nations. It is a social and health crisis, which can lead to tragedies and the loss of human life.

We need regular face-to-face contact as human beings. I would argue we need to have regular physical contact with our fellow human beings. Nobody should under-estimate the healing value of a hug or a wee hold of the hand when somebody really needs it. Loneliness is the way that we have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to respond to a lack of contact in our lives. The same way that hunger is the way that we respond to a lack of food, and tiredness is the way we respond to a lack of sleep or rest. Loneliness is not a mental health illness or condition. It is the way that our bodies and minds respond to tell us that something is going wrong. Like hunger and tiredness, if we do not deal with it in the early stages, if we do not help people to deal with it, it can quickly become a significant health problem, very often connected to depression, to a loss of self-worth and all the mental and physical health conditions that can follow from that.

As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, loneliness and isolation are not the same as being alone. We all need time to be alone. One of my favourite quotes is from a adopted Fifer called Hamish Brown: “Solitude can be as sweet as honey, but remember you can’t live on honey for ever.” We all need time to be alone, but in the modern world, that is possibly one of the biggest things that people lack. Being forced to be alone is different, whether that is someone being alone in their own house, because no one will come and talk, or in a crowded room, because everybody is talking to each other, or because everyone is having a party and a barbecue next door and they are not invited. It is possible to be unbearably lonely in a big crowd, just as it is possible to be on one’s own yet not feel lonely. We need to accept those things. We need to accept that different people react to loneliness in different ways, just as they react to hunger, fear or tiredness in different ways.

Among the various reminders we have had that loneliness affects everybody and appears in all sectors of society, making itself known in different ways, one thing we have to recognise is something I encounter far too often in my constituency casework: there are people who use loneliness as a weapon. There are people who will deliberately use loneliness and the isolation of a partner to prevent them from having a life. In some cases, it is sadly a prelude to depriving them of that life. Loneliness does not always happens naturally. Sometimes it is forced on somebody deliberately by a partner as a means of controlling their life.

We have spoken about some of the things that have happened recently that have probably made loneliness worse. We cannot possibly point to one thing and say, “That has made loneliness increase by 2%, 5% or 10%.” The cost of living is making people become more isolated, which makes people lonely. There cannot be any argument about that. I want to suggest to the Minister that some of the things that the Government do, even if they are not intended to make people feel lonely, are having that impact. I suggest that the Government should think about that in future.

It can be very lonely going for a benefits assessment, especially in circumstances where the person is not allowed to bring someone with them, or only an approved person. One person against the system can feel very lonely indeed. Does the way that we treat asylum seekers and refugees help them to feel that they are part of a community? Does current Government policy and practice help to reduce loneliness among asylum seekers who land in a country where they do not know anybody, where they do not speak the language and where very few people speak their language? I do not think that it does.

The financial austerity to which our public services have been exposed and subjected over the years means that local authorities have had to protect the statutory “must have” services and that a lot of the “nice to have” services have been badly and disproportionately affected. They are being so affected that we are beginning to realise that they are not just nice to have; they are a must have. It is possible for communities to survive without a library, post office, community centre or primary school, but take all those things out of a community and it starts to die, and those who are left in the community are likely to become lonely and more isolated.

The facilities I am talking about, not all of which are the Government’s responsibility, are libraries, community centres, bowls clubs—I declare an interest as a 31-year member of Leslie Bowling Club; I have not swung a decent bowl yet, but I keep on trying—small independent cafés and pubs. They were once, and in some cases still are, vitally important social centres for communities. What happens in a community when those facilities are lost? All those places appear to be there for one purpose or another, but in fact their importance is that they are places for people to go and meet people. For a lot of people in a lot of communities, the library, café or community centre is the only place that they can meet other people.

That has to be recognised when a council considers whether to withdraw funding from a community centre or close down a library, or when the Government or a local authority considers changes that will lead to small businesses, cafés and pubs closing. Do any Government or council factor in the impact on loneliness before they take any of those decisions? I very much doubt it. I suggest to the Minister that if the Government are serious about this, any assessment of any decision should include its impact on loneliness and general community wellbeing as an essential part. I have no doubt that we will get good, well-meaning words from the Minister and that he will agree with what everyone else has said, because people tend to agree on the issue. We can all agree about what needs to be done, but somebody needs to do it. We can all agree about what the bad impacts are, but sometimes decisions may unintentionally make those impacts even worse.

We have heard a lot about the impact of covid. In some ways, it pulled communities together, but it left a lot of people feeling isolated. Those of us lucky enough to live close to countryside could go out for a walk quite happily and, although we were not allowed to arrange to meet people, could meet people. For those living in the middle of a big city, it was not nearly such an attractive proposition. The increased use of remote working, remote shopping and remote everything else has a lot of benefits, but we need to recognise the downsides as well. We need to encourage people who isolated for a long time during covid and who were so scared of covid that they have not quite come out of their shell yet. There are too many people unnecessarily isolating themselves when the risk of covid has now been greatly overtaken by the risk of loneliness and all the problems that that can bring.

Let me finish by looking at some success stories. We were encouraged earlier to name drop all the great things in our constituencies. That would take me until past 4.25 pm, never mind leaving time to let the other Front-Bench spokespeople speak, so I cannot drop any names, but I will mention some of the brilliant local cafés in my constituency, which I support the best I can. The Men’s Sheds have already been mentioned. They do a fantastic job, and there are a number in my constituency. Glenrothes Men’s Shed, by the way, is a men’s and women’s shed—at least that is where my wife says she is going every Monday morning, so I presume that they allow women. It is open to everybody, and I have never known anyone to go to the Men’s Shed and not come out feeling a better person.

A lot of community cafés, pantries and so on grew up during the covid crisis. I cannot pick out any individual facilities, but I need to mention one person, Rose Duncan, who was an absolute giant of the community effort, particularly in north Glenrothes, during covid. She very sadly passed away a few weeks ago. She gave a lifetime of service to the community in Glenrothes and previously to the community in Methil and Levenmouth, which are also in my constituency. Rose will be greatly missed, and my thoughts are with her family and friends at this time.

Social prescribing was mentioned. Why is it that we have never questioned whether it is a good idea to prescribe antidepressants, which if taken for too long become seriously addictive, but we have not argued about whether it is a good idea to prescribe a season ticket to a local swimming pool or a week’s admission to an exercise class? Bus passes are a great thing. Fife was one of the first places in the United Kingdom—I think one of the first places in Europe—to have free bus passes for elderly people. I was surprised when I discovered that I am now an elderly person. The Scottish Government have taken that scheme over, and we now have free bus travel anywhere in Scotland. It is a benefit to me and also benefits this place to the tune of £20 every time I come down here, because the Scottish Government are subsidising this place by that amount—this place is very welcome. I am quite happy to keep subsidising it because I know it could not survive if it was independent.

There are benefits of initiatives such as bus passes and making sure there are buses that people can get. As one example, I mentioned my membership of Leslie Bowling Club a wee while ago. There were three ladies there, one of whom is sadly no longer with us, who were in their 70s. They were not able to walk very far and were not fit to drive. Every week they would meet at the bus stop in Leslie and, with their bus passes, go to the bus station at the Kingdom centre in Glenrothes. They would take it in turns to pick which bus they went on and go off for an afternoon out and a coffee somewhere and then come back. It made a huge difference to the rest of their week. It made them much more active, vibrant and positive people.

Because those ladies and other people were doing that, the bus services remained viable and were able to continue, even in the early morning when people were going to work, most of whom did not have a bus pass. The whole service was made more sustainable and more viable, helping to keep essential services together. It costs public money, but the public benefits are almost impossible to measure.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman did say he was concluding. I am being told by the official that he is over the standard time, so if he could conclude we would be grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

I certainly will, Dr Huq. I am sorry that I have taken so long.

The most important thing about loneliness over the last few years is that we are now talking about it, and that is because of the great efforts of some of the hon. Members here, and we are talking about it because of Jo Cox. Jo has a fantastic number of legacies in this place. I did not know her well, but I knew her well enough to know that she was the kind of MP we do not see often enough. It was a desperate loss for all of us when she was taken so young. Thank you, Jo, from all of us.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister, Barbara Keeley.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I wish Ramadan Mubarak to all those who today mark the beginning of the holiest period in the Islamic year?

The Minister will be aware that the model of sub-post offices is based on the expectation that most of them will be run by small, semi-independent or independent retail businesses. Those businesses are under desperate strain for a number of reasons, some of them within the Government’s control and some not. The people who run these businesses tell me that they are put off the possibility of taking on the responsibility for a sub-post office because it is now more a drag on the business than a benefit. What steps is he taking to review the business model on which sub-post offices operate? It is quite clearly not fit for purpose, and we are getting to crisis point. If it is not changed soon, we will lose even more post offices.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The model of a post office is evolving to a more diversified approach, but it is important that remuneration is fair and makes post offices sustainable. I was pleased to see that in August 2022 some improvements were made to remuneration. I appreciate that they may not have gone as far as some might wish, but nevertheless we want to see a sustainable network and make sure that our sub-postmasters are fairly remunerated.

[Peter Grant]

In an hour or two we will hear the latest update on the Horizon compensation scheme. Has the Minister made an assessment of how much damage that scandal has done and is continuing to do to the willingness of businesspeople to take on responsibility for running a sub-post office, given how severely badly treated, and indeed betrayed, so many of their potential colleagues have been in the past?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Again, that is a very fair point. It was a horrendous scandal, and the first thing we need to do is properly compensate the victims. Alongside that there is an inquiry going on, headed by Sir Wyn Williams. It is important that we find out exactly what went wrong and who was responsible, and where possible hold those people to account. I think that will restore some measure of confidence to those who have been subject to such disgraceful mistreatment.