UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: 2020

  • Keir Starmer – 2020 Article in the Sunday Telegraph

    Keir Starmer – 2020 Article in the Sunday Telegraph

    The article by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in the Sunday Telegraph on 13 September 2020.

    Let’s Get Brexit Done. That was the promise the Prime Minister made to the British people on the steps of Downing Street hours after last year’s General Election.

    I accept that the leave-remain divide is over. The country needs – and wants – to move on. That is why it is in the best interests of the British people to negotiate a trade deal with Europe.

    It is what the public want, it is what they were promised and it is what they expect to be delivered. I believe a deal is possible too. The outstanding issues are difficult, but they are not insurmountable. An agreement can be struck if both sides hunker down in good faith and break the logjam.

    And yet, it is this Prime Minister and this Conservative Government who have turned the clock back and are reigniting old rows.

    I am not blind to the fact this could be part of the Government’s negotiating strategy in the final weeks of talks. We were repeatedly told last year that the talks were on the brink of collapse, only for a breakthrough or concession from the Government to come a few days later. That is part and parcel of what we have come to expect from Brexit.

    However, the decision to propose a Bill last week that would break an international agreement we signed a matter of months ago is wrong. Many former leaders of the Conservative Party have spoken out to say so. And I suspect the Prime Minister agrees with them and knows his actions are counterproductive.

    First, public trust has been broken. The deal the Prime Minister promised would be done is now being reopened. The divisions within the Conservative Party are being reignited. And at a time when we are all doing everything we can do to follow social distancing rules, ministers are on the television and radio justifying why it is ok for them to break international law. It is as ludicrous as it is frustrating.

    We have broken the trust of our global partners too. I believe we can be a proud nation on the world stage and a moral force for good. We can work with our international partners to strike the best possible trade deals. But, the Prime Minister risks holding Global Britain back. How can we get the best trade deals when we cannot be trusted to keep our word?

    The Labour Party I lead will always speak out in the national interest. I want the talks with Europe to succeed. I have long argued that it is possible to get a deal that can allow businesses to thrive, good jobs to be created and peace in Northern Ireland to be preserved. I want to see our own union of nations –England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – protected too.

    People want to move on from this torturous debate; they want to see a deal done so we can focus as a united nation on how we protect ourselves from the next wave of the pandemic.

    We have all been alarmed by the sharp increase in coronavirus cases in recent days. We have all heard heart-breaking stories from friends or family members who have struggled to get a test. The anxiety we all felt at the start of this pandemic is returning. People are scared about what the next few months might bring, how the virus can be contained, how our economy can be protected and jobs can be saved. Our focus, the Government’s focus, must be on this.

    I want ministers to be fixing the test, track and isolate system. I want to see a plan for how we can protect our care homes from a second wave, support families who are worried about their jobs and make sure children can still get the education they need. Those are my priorities. The priorities of the British people. We should be getting on with defeating this virus, not banging on about Europe.

    Get on with Brexit and defeat the virus. That should be the Government’s mantra.

    Labour is prepared to play its part in making that happen. If the Government fixes the substantial cross-party concerns that have been raised about the Internal Market Bill, then we are prepared to back it. But if they do not, and the talk collapse, then it is their failure and incompetence that will have let the British people down.

  • Darren Jones – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    Darren Jones – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    The text of the speech made by Darren Jones, the Labour MP for Bristol North West, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    My simple request of Ministers today is that they summon the confidence to target support where it is needed most. The Chief Secretary said today to the House that he would not do that because a number of questions need answering. I may be old-fashioned—I hope he listens, as he leaves the Chamber—but I am sure it is for Ministers to answer the questions, not to sit back and wait for others to do their homework for them. If the Chief Secretary is not willing to provide sector-specific support, perhaps he could set out at the Dispatch Box why he is not willing to do that, as opposed to posing questions to Members in this House and deflecting from the call to arms.

    Supporting the industrial foundations needed for our recovery and our future growth is right not just in terms of industrial policy, but in terms of spending taxpayers’ money.

    The Government are understandably borrowing significant amounts of money, but they must spend every pound prudently. Wasting a few billion here and a few billion there is not acceptable when there are so many jobs and businesses on the line.

    Ministers today might refer to HMRC reports that an estimated £3.5 billion has been fraudulently claimed from the furlough scheme, but that is the obvious pitfall of an open-to-all scheme. Bespoke packages of support to strategically important sectors would be negotiated directly with those businesses, with the due diligence and obligations that come with that. I hope that Ministers, too, will have the sophistication to differentiate support for the strategically important sectors—important for the foundations of our economy and our future growth—and the vast number of jobs in the broader economy that fish around them. If strategically important sectors cannot reopen or get back to work, the knock-on effect for bus drivers, security guards, coffee shops and the like, as well as the hospitality, creative and tourism sectors that rely on workers having money to spend, is clearly significant.

    I have confidence that the Government are able to meet those challenges. In addition to sector-specific support, including for sectors that will take longer to reopen, that means two things. First, we need to ensure that we have an adequate test and trace system that gives employers, workers and unions the confidence to return to the workplace. It is not working; getting it right is crucial to retaining jobs in the economy. Secondly, we need the Chancellor to bring forward a fiscal investment in people, as well as a fiscal investment in infrastructure, with proper redundancy support services attached to skills and training opportunities in every part of the country.

    British businesses are up for that challenge, from bringing forward R&D projects and decarbonising to pulling together in the national interest. This pandemic has shown the powerful partnership that can be formed ​between Government, businesses, workers and unions during times of crisis. We should try to hold on to that collective endeavour as we seek to recover and build the British economy, but that requires Ministers to step up to that challenge, to answer the questions that are being posed of them, and to take the necessary action to protect jobs and businesses across the whole of the country.

  • Caroline Nokes – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    Caroline Nokes – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    The speech made by Caroline Nokes, the Conservative MP for Romsey and Southampton North, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that might mean some of the niceties go out of the window.

    My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is absolutely right to have identified the great long list of support that has gone to business, and I thank him for doing so because I now do not have to. I welcome the presence on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I would like to pay particular tribute to him for the help he has given me with individual constituency cases, particularly, I note, with one small business and Lloyds Banking Group. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has just left—in time for me to make that point.

    I want to put on record some local perspective of where businesses in Romsey and Southampton North have had assistance: over 10,000 jobs protected by the furlough scheme; £9.5 million to self-employed people; more than £42 million of bounce back loans; and £17.5 million in business grants. Those are very significant figures. The borough council has worked hand in hand with the Government in reaching out to small businesses, making sure all those who are eligible applied and received assistance. Some 47,000 meals have been eaten via eat out to help out. Could my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pass on to the Chancellor the particular thanks of the lady I met in the Cromwell Arms in Romsey who wanted to talk about the “lovely local lad” who is of course my right hon. Friend the Chancellor?

    Turning to the issue of ongoing support for local businesses, I was pleased to hear this week from Simon Parkes of Elumin8, a Romsey-based business making advanced lighting systems for the automotive industry. He is looking to recruit between three and five new employees—young employees—as soon as possible, and is keen to make the kickstart scheme work not just for his business, but for the benefit of such unemployed young people. Both he and the local council are working with the local enterprise partnership to bring together the minimum number of 30 needed so that more local businesses will be able to benefit. It is great to see the determination to make schemes work and get young people into real jobs who will then enable his business, even in difficult economic times, to thrive and grow.

    I commend the support that has gone to hospitality. We know it is a sector that employs many young people and, indeed, many women—an interest I have particularly. I pay tribute to the Four Horseshoes in Nursling, which is continuing the scheme on its own terms, and I know across the country many are doing the same. However, it would be remiss of me not to return to a sector that I have raised many times in this House and will continue to champion. The beauty industry employs over 370,000 people, over 90% of whom are women. They have stayed locked down longer than other industries, and in some parts of the country they remain locked down, so I welcome the grants that my right hon. Friend has mentioned.

    The green homes scheme is a great scheme and one that can provide energy efficiency and jobs, but please can we make it as wide as possible, so that companies ​such as Kelda Technology in my constituency, which makes showers, can also benefit from it, reducing energy costs through reducing water heating costs?

    Finally, on those in the events industry, my right hon Friend the Chancellor is working really hard to rebalance the economy, but these are small businesses which, if allowed to thrive, will in turn be paying tax in years to come, enabling us to rebalance the economy.

  • Alison Thewliss – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    Alison Thewliss – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    The speech made by Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP for Glasgow Central, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    People across these islands are going through the most difficult of times. In the past six months, people have lost loved ones; they have not been able to have the human contact we all need; and they have struggled to keep themselves and their families going. Communities have pulled together admirably to help their neighbours, but businesses of all sizes have found it difficult, and an estimated 730,000 jobs have been lost so far. Ending the employment support schemes prematurely could cost 3 million jobs. The SNP fully supports the motion tabled by the Labour party today.

    On 17 March, the Chancellor made a promise in this House. He said:

    “I promised to do whatever it takes to support our economy through this crisis and that, if the situation changed, I would not hesitate to take further action.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 931.]

    On these Benches, we welcomed the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment support scheme. The economic powers to create such schemes rest in the hands of the UK Government. That has nothing to do with the strength of the Union: it is merely a reflection of where the economic powers lie.

    The Scottish Government’s programme for government shows that where we do have the powers, Scotland has an ambitious and comprehensive plan for sustainable economic recovery, and 71% of Scots now think that Holyrood should have the financial powers required to protect our economy.

    Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)

    The hon. Lady mentioned the SNP’s programme for government. Does she agree with the SNP Scottish Government adviser who has said that the programme for government announced by Nicola Sturgeon lacks ambition for business and economic recovery in Scotland?

    ​Alison Thewliss

    The hon. Member ignores the fact that the SNP Government do not have the full range of powers that we need to protect our economy and which only independence can give us. He knows that is the case.

    This is no ordinary economic downturn. The UK Government, on clear and urgent public health grounds, instructed and required many profitable, productive and sustainable firms to close. In sectors, such as hospitality, events, tourism, aviation, culture and the arts, these limitations will remain for the foreseeable future.

    Jim Shannon

    One thing we have not yet considered in this debate is the proposal for a four-day working week. Does the hon. Lady think a four-day working week could enable the economy to maintain its position and get beyond the dark spots of next January, February and March?

    Alison Thewliss

    The hon. Member makes a very good and well-considered point. There are lots of opportunities the Government have not considered for how we might spread around the limited and reducing number of jobs we have in order to keep people in employment.

    The Federation of Small Businesses has noted that tourism and retail account for nearly half a million jobs in Scotland, many of them seasonal and rural, and many of them now facing the furlough scheme’s winding down at the very time business is at its quietest. As we have seen from local lockdowns, such as those in Leicester, Aberdeen and Greater Manchester, there is an urgent need to put in place more flexible and enduring support—exactly the type of further action the Chancellor promised he would take. Aberdeen, for example, only managed to raise £232,000 via the “eat out to help out” scheme because of the local lockdown imposed on hospitality there. That compares with over £1 million each in Glasgow and Edinburgh. We need to look at whether the schemes in place are flexible enough when local lockdowns happen.

    A further spike and further local restrictions seem inevitable, so ending support now is incredibly short-sighted. Until public health grounds for closure are removed, the SNP believes that the Government have a clear responsibility to assist and support wherever they can. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned some additional schemes at the tail end of his remarks, but I would ask him to think very carefully: could he live on the money he proposes for those asked to self-isolate? If he ran a business, could he survive and pay wages, pay for stock, the rent and all the bills on the grants he has announced? He probably could not, and many businesses cannot and will fold as a result without support.

    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury talked about phases of this crisis. The coronavirus is not done with us yet. Life is not going back to normal any time soon. The British Chambers of Commerce’s quarterly recruitment outlook revealed that 29% of firms expect to axe jobs over the third quarter—a record high. At the same time, the number of new job opportunities is also depressed across almost all sectors, as is reflected in the various vacancies data. For example, the Office for National Statistics and Adzuna data show the number of online job vacancies for Scotland for the week to 21 August to be almost half the 2019 average—down 49 percentage points—and the Office for Budget Responsibility has ​warned that UK unemployment could surpass the peaks of the 1980s after weaker than expected economic growth. The Chancellor and his Treasury team have a duty to prevent this kind of economic scarring. The devastation of the 1980s still haunts many communities, and I urge them not to gamble with the life chances of the people we are here to represent.

    Jamie Stone

    I give credit where it is due to the Government: the assistance afforded to the tourism industry has saved it in my constituency, which relies hugely on tourism. God forbid that the second spike gets worse than it is, but if it does and we have to close things down again, frankly that will ruin some of those businesses permanently. I make a plea to the Scottish Government and Her Majesty’s Government in Westminster to work together as closely as possible. I hope that this eventuality does not happen, but if it does, we will all need to put our shoulder to the wheel.

    Alison Thewliss

    The hon. Member is absolutely correct. A second spike does not seem to be on the Government’s agenda, and it should be. The measures put in place were put in place at speed, at haste, and the Government should be learning from this and preparing for that second spike now. I would be incredibly grateful if at some point a Minister confirmed that they are doing that, because it is absolutely necessary. We cannot ignore the risk of a second spike, given how the figures have been creeping up in recent days.

    The IPPR has said that ending the furlough scheme will lead to unemployment

    “not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s”,

    with the loss of 3 million jobs, 2 million of which would be viable in the longer term if it were continued. The furlough scheme should be continued for at least two years, or for as long as we need it—perhaps we will not need it for two years, which would be a good eventuality—as is being done in Germany and France. Independent Ireland is keeping its scheme going for a year. No employee or employer should be forced to decide between their health and their income.

    The self-employment support scheme should also have been continued. In addition, a basic temporary income scheme should have been introduced to protect anyone falling through the gaps in support. There is still time for the Treasury to step in and make that commitment, because the lack of parity between those in the different schemes is completely unjustifiable. I remain deeply disappointed that the recommendations of the Treasury Committee to address the gaps in support have not been taken up by the Treasury. The ExcludedUK group, representing at the least 3 million people who have been denied any UK Government support—these include the newly self-employed, freelancers, limited company directors, those on short-term PAYE contracts and many others—is still being ignored by the Chancellor, despite having presented the Treasury with viable solutions.

    The situation facing women requiring maternity leave has also been incredibly stressful and unfair, with many finding themselves ineligible and some who were forced to take maternity leave early now struggling to get the childcare they need to even attempt to go back to work. It is hugely disappointing to hear that the UK Government have rejected the very reasonable request by the 226,000 maternity petitioners to extend maternity leave for three months. I hope the Government will reconsider that. I ​am led to wonder whether different decisions might be made if there were more women on the UK Government Benches.

    When we see Jim Harra, head of HMRC, admit this week that £3.5 billion of furlough cash has been lost in fraudulent claims or error, it is even more galling to those who have no support whatsoever. There have also been errors in my constituency on HMRC’s part. Its inflexibility and inability to deal with MP requests on this issue has also been hugely frustrating for those whose businesses are on the brink.

    The take-up of the coronavirus job retention scheme has been significant, as has been said, with 9.6 million workers furloughed by 1.2 million employers since March. Those employers had made £34.7 billion of furlough claims by 9 August. The scheme will cost the UK Government an estimated £80 billion in total, but we should not forget that this cost is an investment in people and in public health. The cost of not acting would be far greater.

    The figures published by the Treasury demonstrating the sectoral impact of the furlough scheme are interesting. They show only 2% of employees in public administration and defence and 7% of those in finance and insurance being placed on furlough, compared with 77% of those in accommodation and food services—some 1,693,600 employees—and 70% of those working in the arts, entertainment, recreation and other services, amounting to 474,300 employees across the UK. This of course reflects the different nature of the jobs in those sectors and whether it has been possible for people to work.

    The sectors in which furlough take-up has been high are not suddenly going to be able to return to pre-covid business, and there is a real argument for sectoral extensions if the Government will not consider a wholesale extension. The ability of these businesses and organisations to generate income will continue to be hampered by the need to impose public health restrictions. For example, how would a national arts company or a full-scale production be able to get a theatre performance up and running? How would that theatre be able to turn a profit at 40% capacity? What about the restaurant next door, which theatre goers might usually have gone to for a pre-theatre meal, or the pub they might have gone to afterwards, where nobody will be allowed to stand at the bar and that will not have outdoor seating in the depths of a Scottish winter, or even a Scottish autumn?

    How does the Chancellor expect such firms to bear the cost of staffing, rent and other outgoings when they will not see a corresponding increase in income? The short answer is that those costs cannot be borne. The CBI’s head, Carolyn Fairbairn, has warned that

    “it’s too soon to pull business support away at the end of October”.

    The Fraser of Allander Scottish business monitor for quarter 2 this year reported that 55% of businesses that have made use of the job retention scheme expect to decrease their staffing numbers when the scheme is phased out.

    Gavin Newlands

    My hon. Friend will have heard me raise with the Chief Secretary those companies that have abused the furlough by using it to pay for mass redundancies—British Airways is not alone; Centrica and others have followed suit. However, he failed to answer the question about the firing and rehiring of staff at massively reduced wages. Does she think that is fair?​

    Alison Thewliss

    It absolutely is not fair. The scheme is being abused by businesses, and that should not be allowed to happen. I commend to the Government my hon. Friend’s Bill on fire and rehire. If they wanted to do anything at all to help, they would take on the recommendations in his Bill, because they would make a huge difference to people. People should not be expected to do the same job on vastly reduced terms and conditions, under pain of losing their job altogether. It is exploitation pure and simple, and the Government should not accept it.

    The Chief Secretary talked about new opportunities for those in industries that could not continue, but that fails to recognise the reality that there might not be enough jobs for those who are laid off to go into, and that what jobs there are might not be at the same wage level as the jobs they are in now. The cost will be met by the UK Government in one way or another—in employment benefits if not in extending furlough.

    The end of furlough coincides with the end of the period for which people have been granted bill payment holidays. The Standard Life Foundation report, “Emerging from lockdown”, highlights that

    “of the 3.7 million households across the UK granted a bill ‘payment holiday’, over 6 in 10 are already facing financial difficulties and will struggle to repay their debts when these arrangements end. For many, these payment holidays will cease on 31 October 2020—the same date the government’s job retention schemes end, leaving many facing job losses and crippling financial strain.”

    The effect could be devastating: people laid off because their employers cannot afford to keep them on, with debt mounting, and all this among people who are already finding life difficult. The drop in income if people move on to universal credit—if, indeed, they are eligible, which many people are not—will push many families over the brink. I fear that the UK Government are not looking at the bigger picture in the choices they are making.

    The kickstart scheme is not available easily to small employers, which could have a disproportionate impact on the rural economy in places where there are not enough employers to club together to make up the minimum 30 employees. To return to a theme I have spoken about before, there is a risk of young workers being exploited and not being paid a living wage. Nobody in this House would want to live on the wages that young people are expected to work for in this country. I ask the Chief Secretary to reconsider and to pay a real living wage to the young people on the scheme. They deserve nothing less.

    I also raise caution about relating the scheme to universal credit, because many people are not able to access universal credit, as I have said. If the scheme runs only through universal credit, many young people who might otherwise have benefited from the scheme, such as it is, will not be eligible.

    Where the Scottish Government have the power, they have acted. The Scottish Government have spent £4 billion on covid, with over £2.3 billion for businesses. That is above the Barnett consequentials allocated to us. The Scottish Government published their response to the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Economic Recovery on 5 August. They are acting to protect jobs by developing and delivering sector-led recovery plans, working with industry leadership groups, trade unions and others, starting with the construction sector, which ​is coming back from its furlough period. They are supporting jobs through the covid-19 transition training fund. Through the programme for government, they are supporting a national mission to create new jobs, good jobs and green jobs, which includes investing £60 million to support up to 20,000 young people into jobs. There is the £100-million green jobs fund, investment in decarbonisation and the Unlocking Ambition programme. They are also using the national performance framework to promote equality and to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.

    The Scottish Government have made an extra £330 million of funding available this financial year specifically to support Scotland’s economic recovery. That includes £230 million of economic recovery stimulus to invest in capital projects and a £100 million package of funding focused on protecting jobs and supporting those who have been made redundant or whose jobs are at risk.

    I would dearly love the Scottish Government to do more, given the scale of the crisis, but their hands are tied. The Fraser of Allander Institute is clear that

    “the Scottish Government can borrow up to £450m per annum for capital investment (a cap of £3bn). On resource spending, they can borrow up to £600m per annum (a cap of £1.75bn), but only for ‘forecast error’ and ‘cash management’. They cannot borrow to fund discretionary resource spending.”

    That is the crucial point. We urgently need more financial powers in Scotland. If the UK Government will not act on the things we have asked them to act on, they should not stand in Scotland’s way when we have a desire to support our people and businesses. Powers must be devolved to let the Scottish Government get on with the job.

    All of this stands in the context of the looming threat of a no-deal, chaotic and damaging Brexit, with the UK Government gleefully breaking international agreements they themselves signed up to and the outrageous proposals today in clause 46 of the Tories’ United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The UK Government’s power grab over economic development and infrastructure plans cannot be allowed to stand. The Tories speak of a power surge, but the last time I checked, a power surge was a dangerous thing that usually lasts only a few seconds, but that results in serious damage to valuable appliances. For once, the Tories might be telling the truth when they say that that is what is coming to Scotland under their plans.

    Westminster and the Tories cannot be trusted with our economy. What we see today is not “whatever it takes”. Winding up the furlough scheme and allowing so many people to fall through the support net will cause lasting harm to so many people with businesses and to the wider economy. We must have the full powers of a normal independent country to meet the needs of our economy and, most importantly, of the people of Scotland.

  • Steve Barclay – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    Steve Barclay – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    The speech made by Steve Barclay, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

    “welcomes the Government’s response to Covid-19 which has already protected the livelihoods of over 12 million people through the eight-month long Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and Self-Employment Income Support Scheme; acknowledges the support for hundreds of thousands of businesses up and down the country through unprecedented loan schemes, business grants and tax cuts; further welcomes the help to support, create, and protect jobs through measures such as the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, a temporary cut to VAT and stamp duty, increased incentives for apprenticeships, and the new Kickstart Scheme, as set out in the Government’s ‘Plan for Jobs’ policy paper published in July; and further acknowledges that any deviation from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy.”

    The House needs no reminding of the scale of the economic challenge facing our country. Recent GDP figures confirm that we have entered an acute recession on a speed and scale that we have never seen before. An economic crisis on this scale means that whatever the Government do, jobs will be lost, businesses will close and, as the Chancellor said last month, “hard times are here”. We should not underestimate the challenge ahead, but neither should we underestimate the Government’s resolve or that of the British people.

    From the outset of this pandemic, the Government have acted decisively to protect people’s livelihoods, with one of the most generous and comprehensive packages of support anywhere in the world. We are doing everything we can to recover our economy, support businesses and give everyone the opportunity of good and secure work. Our economic response is moving through a careful, co-ordinated plan, in three phases: first, the immediate response, which started with the Budget in March; secondly, the specific plan for jobs announced in July, to protect, create and support jobs; and thirdly, rebuilding, on which we will say more in the autumn Budget and the comprehensive spending review. Let me take this opportunity to thank the many people—including Members from all parties—businesses and other organisations that have brought forward ideas and suggestions to help us to shape that plan.

    Jim Shannon

    I put on the record my thanks for all that the Government have done through the schemes that have helped many of my constituents. One thing needed to make this situation work is the co-operation and help of the banks. Will the Minister consider extending freezes on cards and loans for businesses, especially those in the retail and hospitality sectors? Discussions with the banks and credit card providers are critical to help companies to get over the line. We should extend that period to help them to recover.

    Steve Barclay

    As the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has regular discussions with the financial institutions; he will have heard the concerns set out by the hon. Gentleman and will be happy to take them forward in terms of how the banks respond. In some of the other measures the ​Government have taken—for example, on mortgage holidays—we have seen a recognition of and response to the concerns we have heard about from our constituents.

    Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)

    Haribo in Pontefract has announced that it is consulting on over 200 redundancies and proposing to move some of its production back to Germany. This is devastating for the hard-working workforce. Will the Chief Secretary urge Haribo to work with the GMB trade union and Wakefield Council to look at alternative plans to prevent huge job losses in the middle of a recession, and will the Government stand ready to help them to do so? Does the Chief Secretary accept that manufacturing industry needs support if we are to prevent deeply damaging mass redundancies?

    Steve Barclay

    I absolutely share the concern set out by the right hon. Lady. From conversations that we have had in previous roles, I know how much she advocates for her constituency, and I support that business engaging with her, the council, trade unions and others. I will come on to a number of measures that the Government have taken, and some further measures that we will take, regarding our wider support package to the business community.

    This should be set in the context of the three-phase approach. In the first phase of this crisis, the Government introduced measures to halt the spread of the disease. That included protecting our public services with more than £49 billion of funding for the NHS, schools, local authorities and other front-line services. The Chancellor said that he would do whatever is needed to support our NHS, and that is what he delivered. Our plan supported people, with the furlough scheme supporting nearly 10 million jobs—jobs that might otherwise have been lost.

    The self-employed scheme provided 2.6 million people with £7.6 billion of support, and mortgage and credit payment holidays helped 1.9 million people to manage their finances—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to that earlier. For those who are out of work, we made welfare support more supportive and easier to access, and we introduced a hardship fund to help up to 3 million of the most vulnerable people. Of course our plan backed business, because we know that only by supporting businesses can we create sustainable jobs.

    Caroline Lucas rose—

    Steve Barclay

    Sustainability is an issue dear to the priorities of the hon. Lady, so of course I will give way.

    Caroline Lucas

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I pay credit to the Government because they have supported a number of different groups very well. There is, however, one group who they have not supported: the self-employed, who are falling between the gaps. He will have heard about the very real hardship that they are facing right now. They, and the Excluded UK all-party group, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), have been asking for a meeting with the Treasury team, but they have not heard back. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to meet them and hear directly about the scale of the difficulties they are facing?

    Steve Barclay

    I am very familiar with this issue. We covered it in my appearance before the Treasury Committee some months ago, and the Chancellor has repeatedly ​addressed it. As the hon. Lady will know, the shadow Chancellor referred to part of those concerns, and just yesterday there was discussion in the media about concerns regarding fraud in other Government schemes. Part of the challenge and the constraints on this issue is concern about the level of fraud. We have already set out the Government’s position on the issue. I do not think there is further to add in that respect, because those concerns have been well articulated.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Steve Barclay

    I will make some progress.

    In addition to our support for businesses, we have provided nearly £40 billion of support through the tax system, with tax cuts, tax deferrals and the time to pay scheme. We have provided direct cash grants of £10,000 and £25,000 for small businesses and an extensive range of loan programmes, including dedicated investments for innovative tech firms through our Future Fund, and 100% Government guaranteed loans for the smallest businesses through the bounce back loan scheme. The shadow Chancellor said that she wanted the Government to listen, and bounce back loans are a good illustration of how the Government listened to concerns and changed the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme to include that additional measure. That scheme has benefited 1.1 million businesses. The House does not need to take just my word for it, because the chief economist at the CBI described the Chancellor as

    “standing shoulder to shoulder with small businesses to help them through this crisis.”

    Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)

    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the CBIL scheme, but many medium-sized and larger businesses in my constituency have struggled to get the loans they require. Lloyds Banking Group in particular has been poor at making positive lending decisions. What are the right hon. Gentleman and his Government doing about that?

    Steve Barclay

    I can give a clear and direct answer to that because, together with UK Finance, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has discussed bounce back loans, CBILS and larger business interruption loans. Those were targeted at up to £200 million for that mid-tier category of businesses, and I know from discussions with colleagues that a lot of regional businesses in that mid-tier category have been particularly impacted. The point is that this is about the package of Government schemes. Where there are individual constituency cases, we are, of course, always happy to look at them and UK Finance does a very good job in terms of its response.

    I have set out the first phase. The second phase of the extraordinary support given relates to our plan for jobs. As part of protecting jobs, we have temporarily applied a reduced rate to VAT for tourism and hospitality, supporting over 150,000 businesses and protecting 2.4 million jobs. I do not know whether you, Mr Speaker, had an opportunity to benefit, but you will be familiar with the popular eat out to help out scheme, which has been a real success. The latest figures—only the one course, clearly, Mr Speaker—show that 100 million covers have been claimed, helping to support 130,000 businesses and protect almost 2 million jobs in a sector which, very seriously, has been particularly acutely hit by the covid pandemic.​

    Our plans also create new jobs, injecting new certainty and confidence in the housing market by increasing the stamp duty threshold to £500,000 for first-time buyers. That will drive growth and support across housebuilding and property sectors. It also builds on other schemes, such as creating green jobs through a £2 billion green homes grant, saving households hundreds of pounds a year on their energy bills, and through our £1 billion programme to make public buildings, including schools and hospitals, decarbonised. Together, they are all a part of the £640 billion capital investment in economic recovery, job creation and revitalising our national infrastructure over the next five years.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    Earlier, my right hon. Friend pointed to the success of bounce back loans. There is no doubt that they have been a huge success, but some businesses who have taken out those loans will hit trouble in terms of making repayments. Will he support a programme of best practice across the banking sector to ensure that those businesses have every chance of getting through this, perhaps with different payment plans?

    Steve Barclay

    My hon. Friend raises an important point. From other parliamentary campaigns he has been closely involved in, I know how much he values best practice in the financial services sector. As a former financial services Minister, I share that objective, which is why I am so grateful for the work he has been doing to ensure that best practice is followed to address the specific issue he brings before the House. Of course, the best thing to enable businesses to pay loans back is to get the economy as a whole motoring. That is why we are redoubling our efforts to get on with that now and why the Prime Minister announced that £5 billion of capital investment will be brought forward as part of giving a boost to businesses, so they can indeed meet the requirements of those loans as they arise.

    Our plan supports jobs, creates jobs and protects jobs. That supporting of jobs is really the third component. It includes the announcement of the £2 billion kickstart scheme set out by the Chancellor, which will subsidise hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs for unemployed young people, allowing young people to gain experience that will improve their chances of going on to find long-term and sustainable work. We are also investing a total of £1.6 billion in scaling up employment support schemes, training and apprenticeships to help those of our constituents who are looking for a job.

    Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)

    The Chief Secretary will be aware that companies such as British Airways have used the furlough scheme to facilitate mass redundancy programmes for their staff. In fact, BA has also implemented the firing and rehiring of its remaining 30,000 staff, often on massively reduced wages. Does he think that that is fair?

    Steve Barclay

    That is exquisite timing, because I was just about to turn to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises about that use of furlough and the question that the shadow Chancellor raised about whether the scheme should be extended. I want to address head-on the concerns I have heard about that decision.

    Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    ​Steve Barclay

    I was just going to answer the question, but I will give way.

    Jamie Stone

    The Chief Secretary is very gracious for giving way. This is possibly not the intervention he expects. When we get through all this, and when we have time and peace and quiet, may I urge him and the Chancellor to carry out some sort of audit of how the furlough scheme worked? There have been newspaper stories of inappropriate furloughing of employees, and for any Government of any colour, we need to get to the bottom of that when we have time to do so.

    Steve Barclay

    Having been Brexit Secretary over the previous year and Chief Secretary during this economic challenge, I can say that we will come through this, as the Chancellor has set out, and we will come to a time when we can look at the scheme in the way that the hon. Gentleman refers to.

    The scheme has protected up to 10 million jobs. The shadow Chancellor raised the duration of the scheme, and I understand those concerns. It has been one of the most difficult decisions that the Government have taken, but it is the right one. I remind the House of the extent of the support that we have offered. First, the furlough is already over eight months. It is one of the most generous schemes in the world, and we have been contributing at a higher rate of people’s wages than in Spain. We are supporting a wider range of businesses than in New Zealand, and our scheme will run for twice as long as in Denmark.

    I remind the House that our support for furloughed employees does not end in October, as has been suggested in some interventions. In the Chancellor’s summer statement, he announced the new job retention bonus, which will pay employers £1,000 for every employee still in post by the end of January. For an average employee, that is a subsidy worth 20% of their salary—nearly double the amount of subsidy that a cut in employer’s national insurance would have provided, which I know some people were calling for prior to the Chancellor’s announcement of the bonus. I further remind the House that most people on furlough are employed by very small businesses where £1,000 is a significant and welcome boost.

    While we will continue to support furloughed employees through the job retention bonus, it is right that the main scheme comes to an end. We need to focus now on providing people with new opportunities, rather than offering false hope that they will always be able to return to the same job they had before. It is in no one’s long-term interests for the scheme to continue, least of all those trapped in a job that only exists because of the furlough scheme.

    To those calling for a new targeted or sector-based furlough, I simply pose three questions that I have still not heard answered satisfactorily today. First, which sectors would we not provide support for? Secondly, what would we do about the supply chains of those sectors on furlough, which can reach across the whole economy? Thirdly, most observers have accepted that the furlough cannot last forever, so how long would we extend it for? Without being able to answer those questions, any proposal for a sector-specific furlough cannot be seen as a serious one—

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) rose—

    ​Steve Barclay

    But perhaps we have an answer to the three questions coming—I will happily take the intervention.

    Matt Western

    The Chief Secretary is being generous in giving way; I thank him for that. He will be disappointed to hear that I do not have the answer. However, I want to ask him a simple question. Germany has a much more advantageous scheme, which lasts until 2022. It has been described by industry bodies in the automotive sector and elsewhere as giving them a competitive advantage. Does he agree with that?

    Steve Barclay

    The German scheme sits within a very different landscape. It is not actually administered by the Government. It is a long-standing scheme; it has not been set up as a response to covid specifically. I just gave some illustrations of where the UK’s furlough measures stand internationally. This needs to be seen as part of the wider package of support that the Government have set out. Again, the UK package as a whole stands comprehensively as one of the best international schemes on offer.

    Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Steve Barclay

    I will not, because I am conscious that a lot of Members want to speak in the debate.

    It is important to note that providing such a comprehensive and decisive economic response has, in common with every advanced economy in the world, dramatically increased public borrowing and debt. In the short run, that has been the right strategy, so that we can protect jobs and incomes, support businesses and drive the recovery. Indeed, the OBR has said that if we had not provided the financial support, the situation would have been far worse. But over the medium term, it is clearly not sustainable to continue borrowing at these levels. Yes, clearly, interest rates right now are at historic lows, which means our cost of borrowing is cheap, but with the Government debt exceeding the size of the UK economy for the first time in more than 50 years, even small changes in interest rates would have a very big impact on our public finances.

    Thankfully, we were in a strong fiscal position coming into this crisis, which allowed us to act quickly to support jobs and businesses, but having seen two supposedly once-in-a-generation economic events in just 10 years, we are reminded once again that we cannot know what is around the corner. We will need to return to a position of strong and sustainable public finances.

    Let me make one further point this afternoon. While we have made great strides in tackling coronavirus, it may continue to be necessary to take targeted local action to keep the virus under control. We know the impact these local measures have on people and businesses. Since 1 September, we have been trialling support for individuals in Blackburn with Darwen, Pendle and Oldham. Eligible individuals who test positive with the virus will receive £130 for their 10-day period of self-isolation, with higher payments of up to £182 for members of the household or other contacts who need to self-isolate.

    Today, I can announce further new measures to support businesses. The Government will provide direct cash grants to businesses that have been ordered to close.​

    Closed businesses with a rateable value of £51,000 or less will receive a cash grant of £1,000 for each three-week period they are closed. For closed businesses with a rateable value higher than £51,000, the grants will be £1,500. The grants will cover each additional three-week period, so if a small business is closed for six weeks, it will receive £2,000. This new support will give closed businesses a lifeline through the difficult but temporary experience of lockdown—an important next step in our economic plan to protect jobs and businesses against coronavirus. I am grateful for everything my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has done to develop this scheme, and he will bring forward further details shortly.

    Let me close with one final observation. In the first phase of our economic response to coronavirus, we supported people, businesses and public services, with support totalling £190 billion. In the second phase, our plan for jobs is protecting, supporting and creating jobs, and as we enter the third phase our economic policy will be driven not just by responding to the immediate crisis, but by ensuring that we level up, spread opportunity, tackle climate change and make sure our response to the pandemic is not just about recovery but renewal. I commend the amendment to the House.

  • Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    Anneliese Dodds – 2020 Speech on Protecting Jobs

    The text of the speech made by Anneliese Dodds, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That this House calls for the Government to abandon its one-size-fits-all withdrawal of the Coronavirus Job Retention and Self-Employment Income Support Schemes, and instead offer targeted income support to businesses and self-employed people in those sectors of the economy that have been hardest hit by the virus and are most in need of continuing assistance, and in those areas of the country which have been placed under local restrictions due to rising rates of infection.

    Our country is in the grip of a jobs crisis—a crisis that will intensify if the Conservative Government do not change course. Between April and June this year, the number of people in work fell by the largest amount in over a decade. By July, there were nearly three quarters of a million fewer employees on the payroll than there were just four months earlier. We know that these are extraordinary times. That is why Labour has acted as a constructive Opposition, working with the Government, businesses and trade unions to do all we can to save lives and livelihoods. But it is not enough for the Government now to say simply that this is an unprecedented crisis and that only so much can be done to mitigate the damage. In their amendment to this Opposition day motion, the Conservatives maintain that

    “any deviation”—

    I repeat, any—

    “from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy.”

    Some humility, willingness to listen and flexibility is desperately required here.

    Under this Government, the UK has suffered the highest number of excess deaths in Europe. It has experienced both the worst quarterly fall in GDP in Europe and the worst quarterly fall among all G7 nations. The evidence suggests that the number of job vacancies in the UK has fallen further than in any comparable economy and that it will take us many months to get back to pre-crisis levels.

    Our people have suffered a double whammy: a health crisis coupled with a jobs crisis, both made worse, I regret to say, by the Government’s unwillingness to listen, learn and accept that they do not always know best. But there is still time to change course. Around 4 million people are still furloughed under the Government’s coronavirus job retention scheme. Another 2.7 million people have so far made claims under the self-employment income support scheme, the second and final phase of which has just opened. Many more people have not yet had any support from this Government at all and have fallen through the gaps between the various schemes.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    The hon. Member is making a really powerful point. Does she agree that a huge injustice is being done to the self-employed, many of whom have gone for six months without any support whatsoever? These are our small business owners who take some of their salary and dividends for perfectly ​good reason. Does she agree that the Government should take their fingers out of their ears and start listening to the self-employed?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree with her. We have repeatedly raised that issue with the Government. Repeatedly we have been told that the computer says no—that no response is possible. That does not appear to be the case given the evidence. There would be means to assess people’s previous income. If there is a concern around fraud, ultimately additional deterrents can be added to the system to prevent any such fraud.

    Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)

    Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will give way, but I am aware that there are many, many speakers for this debate, so I wish not to do that too frequently.

    Mr Dhesi

    I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Given the importance of the aviation sector, which has been particularly hard hit, the likes of myself have been calling for an extension of the furlough scheme and a sector-specific deal. However, due to Government inaction and procrastination, thousands of individuals within my Slough constituency are now being made redundant, or are on the verge of being made redundant. Does she agree that it is now time for the Government to act before we lose those jobs for good?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The jobs crisis that we are talking about is particularly intense in many of those communities impacted by the withdrawal of support for industries critical for the future of our country. Of course, as he mentioned, we were promised a sector-specific deal for aviation. We have not received it. We have not had the Government sitting down with the sector to work through the different scenarios and how we can plan for the future in that case. And we are not seeing the targeted wage support in aviation or, indeed, in other industries critical for the economic future that we desperately need.

    Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will take one final intervention, given that it is from the Government Benches, but then I will make some progress.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    I am grateful. On a sector-based approach, I think that, in an interview with The Guardian, the hon. Member said that such an approach would pose challenges. Has she yet published the solution to those challenges?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I fear that the hon. Member may have missed off the end of the sentence, which is that, while it poses challenges, ultimately that does not mean that those challenges should not be stepped up to—they should be faced up to by the Government. His Government have accepted the need for some targeted support for hospitality and retail with the grants. There is also the Eat Out to Help Out scheme. Yes, there will be boundary issues. We fully accept that, but, ultimately, to govern is ​to lead. It is to take difficult decisions. The Government trumpet the fact that they worked with industry, with trade unions and with other stakeholders in creating the furlough scheme. They need to do that again to work through these challenges and to create the targeted system of support that is needed.

    Kevin Hollinrake

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will make some progress if the Member will permit me. He may find the answers to his questions—any further ones—in what I am going on to say.

    In addition to those groups of people who I have just mentioned, we know that there are many others who are concerned about their futures working in parts of the UK that are still subject to local restrictions, or that may be subject to additional restrictions in the future. We also have huge numbers of people, as we have just been discussing, who work in sectors that are still not back to business as usual, despite their critical importance for our economic future—whether we are talking about highly skilled manufacturing or the creative industries—yet the Chancellor is ploughing ahead with this one-size-fits-all withdrawal of the income support schemes, pulling the rug from under thousands of businesses and millions of workers all at the same time, irrespective of their situation. He is doing so without any analysis, it appears, of the impact of this withdrawal on unemployment levels and the enormous long-term costs of so many people being driven out of work.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    One of the categories that comes under severe pressures, as the shadow Minister and others in this House will know, is local councils. Their staff have been furloughed and they are having to take them back but their budgets are squeezed. Does she support my plea that additional help must be given to those councils to protect and retain jobs, because people are operating as a skeleton staff for almost a standard level of service provision, and it is just not possible to deliver that?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. The Government promised local authorities that they would meet their calls to back-fill not just the spending that they have incurred during this period but the income that was lost. What do we have instead? We have a resiling from that promise. That is problematic because of the huge impact it will have on employment in different areas—local authority employment can be a critical part of many economies—but it is also an enormous issue for the economic development in those areas, where ultimately the lack of local leadership will be a huge problem. The Government need to hold to their promise in that regard.

    Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)

    The shadow Chancellor says that she wants to extend the furlough scheme, but the key question is: how long for? The Chancellor said when he announced it that it would end in October. If it is October, the shadow Chancellor says it should be November; if it is November, then she says December. If she wants a sector-specific scheme, when does it end—at the end of the crisis, as some of her colleagues have said? Is that when the virus is eradicated? What is the solution?

    ​Anneliese Dodds

    With all due respect to the hon. Member, he may have missed what I said. We believe that the Government need to sit down and talk to exactly the stakeholders they trumpeted so much about working with when they created the furlough scheme, so that it can provide the system of support that is necessary to protect jobs and protect our economic capacity. As I have said time and again, we do not believe that a continuation of the furlough scheme precisely as it stands now is what is required. We need a targeted wage support scheme, which is exactly the approach being taken by huge numbers of other countries but which this Government are turning their face against.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    I will make some progress because I am aware that so many Members want to speak on this critical subject.

    For some businesses and staff well on their way back to normal, it is absolutely right and proper that wage support ends. As I said, we are not arguing for a continuation of the furlough scheme exactly as it stands across every sector of the economy, but for others, many of which are sectors crucial to our country’s economic future, additional targeted support could be the difference between survival and going under.

    The Chancellor says that he wants to pick winners, but the necessary public health measures that his Government have enacted have created losers. Across the economy as a whole, about one in 10 workers are still furloughed. For the transport sector, it is closer to one in five. For arts and entertainment, it is one in two. Yet he is stubbornly insisting on treating every part of the economy as if it is in exactly the same situation, and in doing so putting the recovery and millions of people’s livelihoods at risk. A targeted extension of Government wage support to enable short-hours working does not mean extending support for everyone forever; it means targeting it at where it is needed most.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    With respect, I will not give way as I have done so many times and I am aware of the time pressure with many Members wishing to participate in this debate.

    We need support that is targeted to the sectors of our economy that have been hardest hit by the virus but are critical to our country’s economic future; to areas of the country that are subject to local restrictions because of this Government’s failure to get a proper grip on the health crisis; and to businesses that would be viable in ordinary times, employing people doing jobs they love, but just need a little more help to get through this crisis. These are people like those I spoke to over the summer in north Wales working in advanced manufacturing. They do not want a permanent handout from Government, just more support while the economy is still in dire straits to help them get back on their feet. Without that support now, jobs like theirs will take years to come back. Jobs in the supply chain linked to their plant will vanish too, and with them the economic prospects for their communities.

    I called on the Chancellor to be more flexible when he gave his summer economic statement in this House two months ago. What do we get instead? A panicked ​handout of £1,000 bonuses to any business, anywhere, that brought back a furloughed employee. That is too much public money to dole out to a business that was going to bring back workers anyway. The Chancellor allocated £9.4 billion for that bonus scheme. Let us just imagine how much more effectively that money could be spent if only he had thought flexibly about how to respond to the crisis. Let us imagine how many of those at-risk jobs could be saved. The economic reality simply does not support the approach the Chancellor is taking, and he should have the courage to recognise that and change course.

    The Chancellor may not wish to take our word for it that a targeted, flexible form of wage support is the right way to go, but he could at least be persuaded by the examples of other countries, such as Germany and France, which have each extended their schemes to last for two years; the Netherlands, which has extended its scheme for a further nine months; or Australia and Ireland, both of which have committed to support furloughed workers until March next year. Of course, in our own United Kingdom the devolved Governments have called for targeted wage support to be continued, not snatched away at the same pace across all sectors of our economy.

    If that is not good enough for the Chancellor, he could listen to trade unions or think-tanks—after all, he trumpeted working with trade unions to create the furlough scheme in the first place. He could listen to the TUC, which has proposed a job retention and upskilling scheme; the Institute for Public Policy Research, which has advocated a coronavirus work sharing scheme; or the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has suggested a covid-19 job support scheme.

    If that is not compelling enough, perhaps the Chancellor could heed the voice of business. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that

    “businesses across the UK are going to need further support to weather uncertainty over the coming months.”

    Make UK has called for

    “an extension of the Job Retention Scheme to those sectors which are not just our most important but who have been hit hardest.”

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Anneliese Dodds

    If I may, I will finish this point and then take one more intervention; I do not want to frustrate all those colleagues who wish to speak in this debate. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that

    “it is time for the Government to bring forward a rescue package for those who have been left out.”

    The Institute of Directors has said that the Chancellor’s bonus scheme would

    “do little to prevent job losses”—

    and that—

    “some form of an extension to the furlough scheme should remain on the table.”

    The CBI has been clear:

    “It’s too soon to pull business support away at the end of October.”

    The Chancellor likes to think that he has the ear of business, but it is clear that he is just not listening when business tells him to change course.

    ​Kevin Hollinrake

    The shadow Chancellor makes some fair points, particularly about working constructively with government. On that basis, should she not constructively set out her solution to these problems, rather than simply saying that the Government should solve them? Obviously, she has ideas of how to solve them, so why does she not publish solutions?

    Anneliese Dodds

    I would love it, frankly, if the Chancellor and his team wished to open talks with the Opposition, with business, with trade unions, looking at the different options that I have just set out. I know the hon. Gentleman is one who does look at detail. I have just set out a variety of different models that have been set out by business, trade unions and think tanks. We want to work with government on this. If he is signalling that he wishes that discussion to happen, I hope that his Front-Bench colleagues will take that invitation up as well. It is not just he who wishes to have that discussion with his Front-Bench team. I note that a huge number of Conservative Members want to participate in this debate, and I am keen to hear their thoughts on it. Some of their colleagues have already pronounced on it. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) has said that there should be

    “targeted extensions to the furlough scheme beyond October.”

    The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has said that he can see the case for it, too. How many more Conservative Members are worried, privately, about the impact on their constituents of this Chancellor pushing stubbornly ahead with his plan to take support away from everyone, all at once?

    Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)

    I recall the Chancellor saying that he would do “whatever it takes”. The hospitality and tourism sector, which covers a quarter of the jobs in my constituency, is now entering its third winter in a row, as the sector puts it. Should not support be targeted at that sector, too?

    Anneliese Dodds

    My hon. Friend has been such a champion for those jobs in York and, indeed, for jobs throughout the country. I say to her exactly what businesses in tourism right across the UK have been saying to me when I have spoken to them: they do not want a handout; they just want a fair chance. If they end up having to close their businesses—if they end up having to lay off staff—it will take a very long time to build those businesses back up again. The Government should be listening to them.

    Indeed, the Government should be listening, as I said, to the Government Members who are concerned about the withdrawal of the scheme. More than half a million at-risk jobs belong to people living in the constituencies of the Chancellor’s newest colleagues on the Government Benches—over 18,000 in Burton, more than 20,000 in Watford and in excess of 21,000 in Milton Keynes North—but so far, the Chancellor is not listening. Of course, he has not come to the Chamber today to hear what Members have to say about the very real fears of their constituents. We have not heard him speak in the House since the summer recess, despite the fact that our country is in the grip of a jobs crisis.

    The Labour party, trade unions, think-tanks, business and even the Chancellor’s own Back Benchers can all see that what the Government are doing will make our ​jobs crisis worse and lead to untold misery for millions of people, as well as reducing our economic capacity for the future. We are all sounding the alarm; the question is: what will it take for this Government to listen?

  • Ian Levy – 2020 Speech on Houses in Multiple Occupation

    Ian Levy – 2020 Speech on Houses in Multiple Occupation

    The speech made by Ian Levy, the Conservative MP for Blyth Valley, in the House of Commons on 9 September 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation; to increase penalties for the contravention of such licences; and for connected purposes.

    The private rented sector is an important part of our housing market. As we see large premises in town centres being vacated by businesses, there is a growing demand for them to be turned into housing. The introduction of high-quality residential units to town centres may be a great way to bring life back into town centres, but a worrying trend is developing in such units: they are subdivided into poor-quality houses of multiple occupancy, which are aimed at the very poorest and most vulnerable in society. The problem affects not only my constituency in Blyth Valley, but other towns up and down this wonderful country of ours.

    Houses in multiple occupancy, or HMOs as they have become known, are a useful part of the housing sector, providing cheap accommodation for people whose housing options are limited. Although standards need to be met in large HMOs, these mainly relate to fire and building safety, as well as ensuring that facilities such as bathrooms are available. However, no consideration is given as part of the regime for the welfare of the residents or the impact that subdividing large properties into HMOs can have on the local community.

    The standards set out a minimum accommodation size, but this makes appalling reading. Two adults are permitted to live in a space of just 10.22 square metres, which is nothing—the size of a reasonably-sized garden shed. According to the regulations, a child under 10 requires an additional 4.6 metres, or the size of a double bed—space not merely to sleep in, but to live, play, learn and eat in. Even more appalling is that, until the last Conservative Government introduced it in 2018, there was no minimum room size at all. The mental welfare of those forced to live in such conditions must be a concern for us all in 2020.

    But however woeful the standards required for licensing HMOs across the country, in my home town of Blyth only one such premises is licensed as a house of multiple occupancy. Others are listed as hotels or marketed as Airbnbs or bed and breakfasts, creating a multitude of problems. When a property is not registered as a house in multiple occupancy, it falls through the gap, which means that local authorities such as the council and the police do not have the right of access and cannot implement boundaries, restrictions or measures to support the safeguarding of the clients living there.

    The very nature of the accommodation provided by HMOs often means that those living in them have fallen on hard times or are suffering from mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse, and, in a lot of cases, as reported to me by the police, domestic abuse. These are vulnerable people, whom we have a duty to safeguard. Allowing HMOs to exist by disguising them as hostels, hotels or bed and breakfasts not only denies tenants security of tenure, but means that the accommodation does not face the true scrutiny it should. ​With no help or support, living in a community can be hard for people who are not well equipped to live on their own.

    Many of these are young people. I worked for years in the NHS in a mental health capacity, and on a few really sad occasions I heard of clients forcibly being taken to cashpoints by drug dealers or loan sharks, where they were forced to empty their bank accounts of the benefits that had been paid in. This would leave the vulnerable client with no money left in their account to buy the basics to live for the next two weeks. Alone in a room with no support is no way for our vulnerable people to live in 2020.

    You and I, Mr Speaker—and, I am sure, everybody in this House—are fortunate that we can take for granted being able to go to the fridge and have fresh milk, along with food to make a sandwich, clothing to put on our backs and a warm bed to sleep in. But when people are in a vulnerable position, it is hard when their finances are taken away from them. Just getting by, day to day, impacts on the trauma that some of these vulnerable people are already having to deal with.

    It is vital that a stricter regime of checks and measures is imposed on landlords to ensure that safeguarding of clients is kept at the forefront. However, there are other issues that need to be addressed. For example, I find it concerning that, as things stand, the police are not consulted on planning applications for large HMOs. However, they are often called upon to deal with the issues that can arise from such dwellings. These houses cause concern in local communities that the inhabitants are likely to cause problems due to antisocial behaviour and other social problems. It is vital that the public living in and around the vicinity feel that they can live and integrate with the residents of houses in multiple occupancy safely and that community values are respected.

    I would like to see, as a result of this legislation, greater powers to local authorities to deal with both the development and governance of houses in multiple occupancy. Requiring large HMOs to provide a nominated person to be responsible for the residents living there on a 24/7 basis would allow a point of contact for the authorities and the local community to highlight issues and, where possible, address them in a way that safeguards both the individuals and the local community.

    I understand that not all HMOs exploit their tenants, and I also understand that there are other reasons why, for people wanting to live in small, cheap units close to facilities, they may be attractive. But I wish to ensure that they are not used as a method of housing vulnerable people in substandard accommodation with no regard for their mental or physical wellbeing or the needs of the local community. I want to ensure that someone being able to buy a house in a sub-prime area and divide it into multiple bedrooms, while showing absolutely no care for the individual or the local residents, becomes a thing of the past. I would like to see a balance given to the community, so that clients feel safe and part of that community, and the public living in and around the vicinities of houses of multiple occupancy feel that they can live and integrate with the clients, with respect and safeguarding for all.

  • Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Boris Johnson – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    The statement made by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister, on 9 September 2020.

    Good afternoon,

    Welcome back to Downing Street for an update on coronavirus as we enter autumn and approach winter.

    I will first hand over to Chris to take us through the latest data before I set out how we are responding to it.

    ***

    Thank you Chris. It is clear from that very powerful graphic that we must act.

    The most important thing every one of us must do is remember the basics.

    First, wash your hands, regularly and for 20 seconds. Don’t get back into old habits, it is so vital.

    Second, wear a face covering over your mouth and nose if you are in an enclosed space and in close contact with people you don’t normally meet. I know wearing a face covering feels odd to some people and I understand that. But face coverings do make it harder for the virus to spread – so please, wear one to protect others.

    Third, make space. Always stay 2 metres away from people you don’t live with – or 1 metre with extra precautions, like extra ventilation, screens, or face coverings.

    Fourth, if you have COVID symptoms, get a test and self-isolate. We are now processing 1.2 million tests a week. To date we have carried out 15.4 million antigen tests – that’s more than any other country in Europe, and more per head than other European countries like Germany and Spain.

    We are increasing our testing capacity further to meet rising demand. You can help by only booking a test if you have a fever, a new continuous cough, or you’ve lost your sense of taste or smell – if you don’t have those symptoms and haven’t been asked to book a test, please don’t.

    So those are the basics – hands, face, space – and get a test if you have COVID symptoms.

    Since the pandemic began, we have asked you to reduce your social contact and limit your interactions with friends and family.

    I know that, over time, the rules have become quite complicated and confusing. We have spoken to police officers about what they need for an effective enforcement regime and of course, listened to the feedback from you, the public.

    In response, we are simplifying and strengthening the rules – making them easier for you to understand and for the police to enforce.

    I should stress that if we are to beat the virus then everyone, at all times, should limit social contact as much as possible and minimise interactions with other households. It is safer to meet outdoors and you should keep your distance from anyone you don’t live with, even if they are close friends or family.

    So in England, from Monday, we are introducing the rule of 6. You must not meet socially in groups of more than 6 – and if you do, you will be breaking the law.

    This will apply in any setting, indoors or outdoors, at home or in the pub.

    The ban will be set out in law and it will be enforced by the police – anyone breaking the rules risks being dispersed, fined and possibly arrested.

    This single measure replaces both the existing ban on gatherings of more than 30 and the current guidance on allowing 2 households to meet indoors. Now you only need to remember the rule of 6.

    There will be some limited exemptions. For example, if a single household or support bubble is larger than 6, they can still gather.

    COVID Secure venues like places of worship, gyms, restaurants and hospitality venues can still hold more than 6 people in total. Within those venues however, there must not be individual groups larger than 6, and groups must not mix socially or form larger groups.

    Education and work settings are unaffected, COVID Secure weddings and funerals can go ahead, up to a limit of 30 people, and organised sport will still be able to proceed.

    As we have found on previous occasions, this rule of 6 will of course throw up difficult cases. For example, two whole households will no longer be able to meet if they would together exceed the limit of 6 people.

    I am sorry about that and I wish that we did not have to take this step. But, as your Prime Minister, I must do what is necessary to stop the spread of the virus and to save lives.

    We will of course keep the rule of 6 under constant review and only keep it in place as long as it’s necessary.

    I also want to see – and the public wants to see – stronger enforcement of the rules which are already in place. So I’ve have tasked the Cabinet with increasing enforcement and I would like to thank the police, as always, and other authorities for the work they are doing to keep us all safe.

    In future:

    Premises and venues where people meet socially will be legally required to request the contact details of a member of every party, record and retain these details for 21 days, and provide them to NHS Test & Trace without delay when required.

    We will support local authorities to make further and faster use of their powers to close venues that are breaking the rules and pose a risk to public health.

    Fines will be levied against hospitality venues that fail to ensure their premises remain COVID Secure.

    We will boost the enforcement capacity of local authorities by introducing COVID Secure Marshalls to help ensure social distancing in town and city centres, and by setting up a register of Environmental Health Officers that local authorities can draw upon for support.

    We will simplify the Passenger Locator Form needed for travelling to the UK, and take measures to ensure these are completed and checked before departure.

    Border Force will step up enforcement efforts at the border to ensure arrivals are complying with the quarantine rules.
    We will also restrict the opening hours of premises, initially in some local areas.

    At the present time we must also, I’m afraid, revise plans to pilot larger audiences in venues later this month and review our intention to return audiences to stadiums and conference centres from 1 October. That doesn’t mean we’re going to scrap the programme entirely it just means we are going to review and abridge it, and the Culture Secretary will say more shortly.

    Let me be clear – these measures are not a second national lockdown – the whole point of them is to avoid a second national lockdown.

    By bearing down on social contact and improving enforcement, we can keep schools and businesses open, in the knowledge they are COVID Secure.

    I have always said schools and colleges should only ever be shut again as a very, very last resort. As the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser have said, the long term risks to children’s life chances of not going to school are significant and far greater than the health risks of going back to school.

    Indeed it’s been fantastic to see so many children back in school this term and I want, once again, to thank all our teachers, and to reassure parents and pupils that schools are safe.

    University terms will also begin soon. Opening universities is critical, again, for students’ life chances and, again, the health risks to individuals are low.

    Of course, many university students are in the age bracket where we have seen the infection rates rise recently as Chris was just explaining. My message to students is simple. Please, for the sake of your education and your parents’ and your grandparents’ health: wash your hands, cover your face, make space, and don’t socially gather in groups of more than 6, now and when term starts.

    Today the Department for Education is publishing updated guidance for universities on how they can operate in a COVID Secure way, including a clear request not to send students home in the event of an outbreak, so as to avoid spreading the virus across the country. I am very grateful to universities for their continued cooperation and planning for the return of students.

    The measures I have set out today will help us control the virus but won’t, on their own, be enough to allow a more significant return to normality.

    Patrick is going to set out in a moment where we are on vaccines and treatments in a moment, but we are not there yet and there are no guarantees.

    So over the summer, we have therefore been working up an alternative plan which could allow life to return closer to normality. And that plan is based on mass testing.

    Up to now, we have used testing primarily to identify people who are positive – so we can isolate them from the community and protect high risk groups. And that will continue to be our priority. We are working hard to increase our testing capacity to 500,000 tests a day by the end of October.

    But in future, in the near future, we want to start using testing to identify people who are negative – who don’t have coronavirus and who are not infectious – so we can allow them to behave in a more normal way, in the knowledge they cannot infect anyone else with the virus.

    And we think, we hope, we believe that new types of test which are simple, quick and scalable will become available. They use swabs or saliva and can turn round results in 90 or even 20 minutes. Crucially, it should be possible to deploy these tests on a far bigger scale than any country has yet achieved – literally millions of tests processed every single day.

    That level of testing would allow people to lead more normal lives, without the need for social distancing:

    Theatres and sports venues could test all audience members on the day and let in those with a negative result, all those who are not infectious. Workplaces could be opened up to all those who test negative that morning and allow them to behave in a way that was normal before COVID. Those isolating because they are a contact, or quarantining after travelling abroad, could after a period be tested and released. Now that is an ambitious agenda, but we are going to pilot this approach in Salford from next month, with audiences in indoor and outdoor venues. And then we hope to go nationwide.

    There are a number of challenges. We need the technology to work. We need to source the necessary materials to manufacture so many tests. We need to put in place an efficient distribution network. And we need to work through the numerous logistical challenges.

    And as I say, we are not there yet, and I should repeat that, as we manage this period of high demand, it is especially important that if individuals don’t have symptoms, and have not been specifically advised to take a test, they should not be coming forward for a test – because they could be taking a test away from someone who really needs it.

    Our plan – this moonshot that I am describing – will require a giant, collaborative effort from government, business, public health professionals, scientists, logistics experts and many, many more.

    Work is underway – and we will get on at pace until we get there, round the clock.

    We are hopeful this approach will be widespread by the spring and, if everything comes together, it may be possible even for challenging sectors like theatres to have life much closer to normal before Christmas.

    But as I have said before, all this progress is contingent on continued scientific advances and though we’re hopeful, I cannot 100% guarantee that those advances will be made.

    That is why it is so important that we take these tough measures now.

    I believe we will continue to drive this virus down and that we will beat this virus before too long.

    So let’s work together and follow the rules: meet in groups of no more than six. Wash your hands, cover your face, and make space.

    I will now hand over to Patrick to set out the latest on vaccines and treatments, and then we’ll go to questions from the public and the media.

  • Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Comments on New Coronavirus Cases

    Jonathan Ashworth – 2020 Comments on New Coronavirus Cases

    The comments made by Jonathan Ashworth, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 6 September 2020.

    Today’s increase in Coronavirus cases is deeply concerning and a stark reminder that there is no room for complacency in tackling the spread of the virus.

    This increase, combined with the ongoing testing fiasco where ill people are told to drive for miles for tests, and the poor performance of the contact tracing system, needs an explanation from Ministers.

    Matt Hancock must come to the House of Commons tomorrow to set out what is being done to get testing back on track and bring case numbers down.

  • Louise Haigh – 2020 Comments on Brexit Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland

    Louise Haigh – 2020 Comments on Brexit Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Louise Haigh, the Shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, on 6 September 2020.

    These reports, if true, show what we have long feared – that the ‘oven-ready’ Brexit deal the Prime Minister promised the British people was yet another example of his fluid relationship with the truth.

    Just 10 months after signing a treaty promising to implement the Northern Ireland protocol, Boris Johnson’s government is already threatening to renege on the UK’s legal obligations.

    This would be an act of immense bad faith: one that would be viewed dimly by future trading partners and allies around the world and make it more difficult for us to hold other governments to account.

    It beggars belief that the Government is – yet again – playing a dangerous game in Northern Ireland and sacrificing our international standing at the altar of the Prime Minister’s incompetence.

    It is in the interest of all parties to reduce the burden on businesses and the economy in Northern Ireland, but these practical solutions must be agreed on the basis of trust – trust which Ministers have now jeopardised.