Energy costs 'an anchor on our ambition', CBI chief warns government
The head of a major business lobby group is warning that energy bills in the UK are an "anchor" on private sector ambitions, exacerbating the effects of an annual £24bn burden from government costs.
CBI boss Rain Newton-Smith was to tell the body's annual business dinner in London that a "serious" plan was needed to address the energy issue, arguing they were holding back investment and the country's competitiveness.
A reliance on natural gas has meant that both households and businesses have been exposed to volatile prices since Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Money latest:
The CBI says UK companies pay 50% more for their energy than counterparts in France and Germany - and four times more than comparable operators in the US and Canada.
Ms Newton-Smith was to tell her audience of business leaders and politicians that 40% of UK firms were holding back on investment due to punitive energy costs alone.
She argued they were on top of an estimated extra £24bn a year in tax and wage hikes imposed by government.
They included three increases to minimum pay rates since the 2023/24 financial year and rises to employer national insurance contributions which came into force in April.
The CBI said Ms Newton-Smith will say: "Business is now straining under £24 billion in extra costs per year.
"That's more than the cost of Crossrail. More than the Home Office budget - on business, every year."
She will add: "With costs running so high, there is one issue we absolutely must tackle.
"Without it, any industrial strategy, any serious plan for economic security will fall flat on its face. Energy."
She will say the rising cost of energy "isn't just a cost issue".
"It's a jobs issue. An investment issue. A security issue.
"Because how can UK business compete with one hand tied behind its back - and the other straining to keep the lights on?
"This is an anchor on our ambition. A crack in our economic security. And it must be fixed."
The CBI's suggestions include removing policy costs from electricity bills and a focus on low-carbon energy to help achieve economic security.
The latter wish has formed the centrepiece of the Labour government's approach, arguing that a push for renewable energy is a key pathway to bring down bills, emissions and grow the economy at the same time.
A government spokesperson said: "Through our sprint to clean power, we will get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets - protecting business and household finances with clean, homegrown energy that we control.
"We are already bringing energy costs for key UK industries closer in line with other major economies through the British industry supercharger - saving businesses £5 billion over the next 10 years."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Starmer will pay a heavy price for his efforts to fight off Reform
Next week's spending review should go better for the Chancellor than widely expected – at least, in the short term. The Treasury communications plan would normally build up to the big day by focussing on things that might get lost in the moment. So if they can pre-announce an extra £1bn for free school meals and £16bn for transport projects, that suggests there is even more good news up Rachel Reeves's sleeve. I suspect there will be reasons enough for Labour MPs to cheer on Wednesday. Together with the about-turn on the winter fuel allowance, however messy that may be, I'm sure this will get the Chancellor through the week. The reasoning for the winter fuel change is on display in Scotland. Labour won a surprise by-election victory in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, snatching the Scottish Parliament seat from the SNP. Not only that, but it managed to see off the threat of Reform, which surged into third place in the constituency. The real challenge will come in the autumn. Not least because the bill for this good news will have to be paid. Voters may not then be as grateful as they might be next week when they see their taxes go up thanks to the Government's botched attempt to reform the welfare system. So these short-term wins will quickly evaporate and simply store up more political trouble for the future. With other headwinds going against the Government, Reeves may need to find anywhere between an extra £10bn and £30bn in the next Budget. The Chancellor refused four times to rule out more tax rises this year when questioned at the CBI annual dinner this week, suggesting this is exactly what she is contemplating. Aside from the economic damage this will do, tax rises of this magnitude will have serious political implications. First of all, it will further exacerbate Reform's overall appeal. With a general election so far away, it doesn't really matter that Reform's numbers don't add up. People like what they are saying about tax cuts funded by spending less on net zero and diversity initiatives. With Labour poised to announce more money for net zero, Reform will argue it gives them even more cash with which to fund tax cuts. Any tax rise will therefore make this dividing line even starker. Given the scale of revenue needed, it looks increasingly likely that the Chancellor may have to break her manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, National Insurance or value added tax (VAT), as well as keeping corporation tax at or below 25pc. Some rises are politically more damaging than others. Faced with a choice of which promise to break, which is the most Reform-friendly option? Given that many of Reform's voters are on the economic Left, measures that hit lower-income, working people seem unlikely. So I think we can rule out income tax or National Insurance rises. Likewise, VAT. This was one of the many tax rises that seemed to always appear on Treasury scorecards ahead of each fiscal event I was involved in. It is straightforward and raises serious revenue, with each additional percentage point resulting in around £8bn of extra tax income. George Osborne increased the standard rate of VAT to 20pc, which didn't stop the Conservatives from winning a majority at the next general election. He hadn't promised not to do so, though – and I cannot see how this Government could target people's pockets when its main measure for economic growth is supposed to be real household disposable income. With inflation also expected to stay around 3pc for the rest of this year, anything that pushes prices up in the short term makes little sense. Which leaves one major tax that Labour promised to leave untouched, but that no one is really talking about: corporation tax. For the avoidance of doubt I think it would be a terrible mistake to increase it. It would be the final nail in the coffin of the Government's relationship with 'big business', send a dreadful signal to international investors and represent the end of Reeves's already-crumbling growth narrative. But if you compare it to the alternatives, I can see why Sir Keir Starmer and his Chancellor may go for it. For a start, it would be popular, even populist. Every Treasury commissioned opinion poll and focus group that I saw found overwhelming support for increasing tax on big business. It also passes the PM's payslip test and wouldn't directly hit working people in the pocket. It is lucrative too. Every percentage point increase would raise around £4bn a year. You could therefore get most, if not all the revenue you need, from one measure, avoiding the need to fight on many fronts. Whichever tax rise they do pick, expect the Chancellor to blame 'international events'. They will no doubt be helped somewhat by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which will (rightly) take into account the impact of increased global tariffs on GDP. Whether this negative hit is sufficient to mask the impact of the actions the Government itself has taken, we will see. By the autumn, the Government will be in damage-limitation territory. With Reform continuing to ride high in the polls, they may be tempted to find the money they need from big business rather than working people, regardless of the economic consequences. But the general election is a long way off and Starmer risks paying a heavy price if decisions he takes now to boost Labour's standing fail to sustain momentum by the time it comes around. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
CNN journalist mocked for saying she's ‘afraid' to travel to the US: ‘As if I was going to North Korea'
CNN's famed war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, is being mocked for claiming she's terrified of traveling to the US — and even needs burner phones and other prep 'as if I was going to North Korea.' The British-born journalist, who has covered war zones extensively throughout her career, revealed that she spoke to CNN security and carried a burner phone when she traveled to the US last month to give an address at Harvard University. 'I must say I was afraid. I'm a foreigner. I don't have a green card. I'm not an American citizen. I'm fairly prominent, and I literally prepared to go to America as if I was going to North Korea,' Amanpour said Wednesday on her 'The Ex Files' podcast, which she hosted with her ex-husband, James Rubin — a former State Department official. Advertisement 'I literally prepared to go to America as if I was going to North Korea,' Christiane Amanpour said. Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files 'I took a burner phone, Jamie. Imagine that, James.' The anchor, 67, noted she spoke with the lefty network's security team before setting off to the US after hearing stories of foreigners being stopped for 'hours and hours' in the wake of President Trump being elected. 'I even talked to the CNN security person because of this,' she said, saying that she's heard even 'British citizens are being stopped at the border and questioned for hours and hours and hours.' Advertisement Amanpour — a renowned foreign correspondent who covered the Iraq, Persian Gulf and Bosnian wars — later acknowledged that her trip went off without a hitch. 'So, huge sigh of relief I breathed, but wow, can you imagine if I'm afraid, what do others think?' she said. The backlash against her was swift on social media — with many mocking her travel fears given her extensive background in war zones. Advertisement 'Don't visit. We will survive,' one person wrote on X. 'CNN's Christiane Amanpour is free to remain wherever she feels safe. Feel afraid to travel to America, then don't come here. Simple,' another griped. One user bluntly said: 'Then stay in England.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Zia Yusuf didn't leave Reform because he was a victim of racism
Zia Yusuf was billed by some as one of the rising stars of British politics – so his abrupt resignation as chairman of Reform UK has created quite a splash. Wading in with his typical opportunistic identitarianism, former leader of the SNP, Humza Yousaf, said on X that Yusuf's departure from Reform should serve as an example to all 'people of colour' – that the 'hard-right' would never accept them, even if they make sizeable financial donations. He added that it was no surprise that the insurgent challenger party of the Right eventually dispensed with their 'brown, son-of-an-immigrant, Muslim' party chairman. While there have been reports of Yusuf being sidelined within Reform for some time, the straw that broke the camel's back appears to be a disagreement between him and the party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin. In PMQs, the recently elected MP for Runcorn and Helsby asked Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer whether he would entertain the possibility of introducing restrictions on the wearing of the burqa in the UK. Yusuf seemingly took issue with this by publicly rebuking Pochin on X. He said it was 'dumb' to argue for measures which were not official Reform policy. The writing was on the wall for Yusuf after the spat with Pochin. She is Reform's first female MP, and insulting her in public over a question in the Commons about banning the burqa – being a Muslim man – was political self-destruction and contradicted his own emphasis on 'professionalising' the party. The question itself was an entirely reasonable one. Morocco – a predominantly Muslim country where Sunni Islam is the state religion – banned the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of the burqa back in 2017. This was on the grounds of security considerations and part of a broader approach to combat Salafist influences in the North African country. If Yusuf was disappointed that certain procedures should have been followed by Pochin, this should have been discussed in private and he should have raised the importance of party discipline and order as chairman. This would have been responsible and professional chairmanship. While there is no doubt that Yusuf suffered a great amount of racist and anti-Muslim abuse from what the Reform leader Nigel Farage has labelled 'alt-right' trolls, a more plausible explanation for Yusuf's resignation is that he found the transition from business to politics difficult – and understandably so. In the world of business, he is unquestionably successful: he co-founded a luxury concierge company which was later sold to Capital One in a £233 million deal. But chairing a fledgling political party requires a greater degree of patience – especially when it comes to instilling organisational discipline and order as part of a broader professionalisation strategy. Whether it was restlessness, disillusionment, or clashing with other personalities, Yusuf the businessman had clearly grown frustrated in his political role. And nobody can blame him for that. While the likes of Humza Yousaf would love nothing more than to portray Zia Yusuf as a non-white Muslim victim of ethno-nationalist persecution, the reality is far more complicated. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
