The Chancellor of the Exchequer ()
Let me speak first to the people of Liverpool, Lancashire, South
Yorkshire and Greater Manchester, and other areas moving into or
already living under heightened health restrictions. I understand
your frustration. People need to know that this is not forever;
these are temporary restrictions to help control the spread of
the virus. There are difficult days and weeks ahead, but we will
get through this together. People are not on their own. We have
an economic plan that will protect the jobs and livelihoods of
the British people, wherever they live and whatever their
situation. Just as we have throughout this crisis, we will listen
and respond to people’s concerns as the situation demands.
I make no apology for responding to changing circumstances, so
today we go further.
The Prime Minister was right to outline a balanced approach to
tackling coronavirus, taking the difficult decisions to save
lives and keep the R rate down while doing everything in our
power to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British people.
The evidence is clear: a regional, tiered approach is the right
way to control the spread of the virus. My right hon. Friend the
Chief Secretary to the Treasury yesterday set out for the House
our economic support for businesses that are legally required to
close. We are providing: billions of pounds of support for local
authorities and a grant scheme for affected businesses, worth up
to half a billion pounds every month. Of course, we also expanded
the job support scheme, with the Government covering the cost of
paying two thirds of people’s normal wages if their employer had
been legally required to close. For areas in local alert level 3,
we have made available over £1 billion of generous up-front
grants, so that local authorities can support businesses, protect
jobs and aid economic recovery in a fair and transparent way.
That is our plan to support closed businesses.
But it is clear that even businesses that can stay open are
facing profound economic uncertainty. This morning I met business
and union representatives, including those from the hospitality
industry, to discuss the new restrictions. Their message was
clear. The impact of the health restrictions on their businesses
is worse than they hoped. They recognise the importance of the
tiered restrictions in controlling the spread of the virus, but a
significant fall in consumer demand is causing profound economic
harm to their industry. It is clear that they and other open but
struggling businesses require further support, so I am taking
three further steps today.
First, I am introducing a new grant scheme for businesses
impacted by tier 2 restrictions, even if they are not legally
closed. We will fund local authorities to provide businesses in
their area with direct cash grants. It will be up to local
authorities to decide how best to distribute the grants, giving
them the necessary flexibility to respond to local economic
circumstances, but I am providing enough funding to give every
business premises in the hospitality, leisure and accommodation
sectors a direct grant worth up to £2,100 for every month for
which tier 2 restrictions apply. That is equivalent to 70% of the
value of the grants available for closed businesses in tier 3.
Crucially, I am pleased to confirm that these grants will be
retrospective; businesses in any area that has been under
enhanced restrictions can backdate their grants to August.
I have been listening to and engaging with colleagues around the
House, including—but not only—my hon. Friends the Members for
Heywood and Middleton (), for Hyndburn (), for Penistone and Stocksbridge (), for South
Ribble (), for
Burnley (), for Keighley (), for Cheadle (), for Leigh () and for
Southport (), and I am
pleased to confirm that the backdating of the new grants means
that we are being more generous to the businesses and places that
have been under higher restrictions for longer. Let no one say
that this Government are not committed to supporting the people
and businesses in every region and nation of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, to protect jobs we are making the job support scheme
more generous for employers. If businesses are legally required
to close, as we have already outlined, the Government will cover
the full cost of employers paying two thirds of people’s salary
where they cannot work for a week or more. For businesses that
can open, it is now clear that the impact of restrictions on them
is more significant than they had hoped, particularly for those
in the hospitality sector. I am therefore making two changes to
the short-time work scheme to make it easier for those businesses
to keep staff on, rather than make them redundant: first, under
the original scheme, employees had to work for 33% of their
normal hours, whereas now we will ask them to work only 20% of
those hours; and secondly, the employer contribution for the
hours not worked will not be 33% as originally planned, or even
20% as it is in the October furlough scheme, but will reduce to
5%.
The scheme will apply to eligible businesses in all alert levels,
so that businesses that are not closed, but which face higher
restrictions in places such as Liverpool, Lancashire, South
Yorkshire, and Greater Manchester, as well as the devolved
nations, will be able to access greater support. These changes
mean more employers can access the scheme and more jobs will be
protected. We have made this one of the most generous
versions of a short-time work scheme anywhere in the world. It is
better for businesses, better for jobs and better for the
economy.
Thirdly, as we increase the contribution we are making towards
employees’ wages, I am increasing our contribution to the incomes
of the self-employed as well. Today we are doubling the next
round of self-employed income support from 20% to 40% of people’s
incomes, increasing the maximum grant to £3,750. So far through
this crisis, we have provided more than £13 billion of support to
self-employed workers. Sole traders, small businesses and
self-employed people are the dynamic entrepreneurial heart of our
economy, and this Government are on their side.
In conclusion, a wage subsidy for closed businesses, a wage
subsidy for open businesses, cash grants of over £2,000 a month
for tier 2 businesses and up to £3,000 a month for closed
businesses, support for local authorities, support for the
self-employed, support for people’s jobs and incomes, all on top
of over £200 billion of support since March. This is our plan—a
plan for jobs, for businesses, for the regions, for the economy,
for the country. A plan to support the British people. I commend
this statement to the House.
11.51 am
(Oxford
East) (Lab/Co-op)
For months, we have urged the Chancellor to get ahead of the
looming unemployment crisis and act to save jobs. Instead we have
had a patchwork of poor ideas rushed out at the last minute: a
bonus scheme that will pay £2.6 billion to businesses that do not
need it; a job support scheme that simply was not going to work
for the majority of businesses under pressure and that we said at
the beginning did not do enough to incentivise employers to keep
staff on; and an approach to support for areas entering tier 3
that has been nothing short of shambolic.
This has had real consequences. The deadline for large-scale
redundancies came and went before the Chancellor announced the
job support scheme, the deadline for small business redundancies
passed before he realised that he needed to amend it, and many
parts of our country have spent months under tier 2 restrictions
without adequate support. How many jobs have been lost because of
that inaction? Over a million have already gone. In the last
quarter, we saw a record rise in redundancies. The Chancellor
could have done much more if he had acted sooner.
Now we see yet another last-minute move. Let me ask the
Chancellor. What has changed that means that this is the right
thing to do now but it was not when parts of the north and
midlands entered tier 2 many weeks ago? Does he agree with his
own Mayor for the west midlands who said that
“this particular point was just one that was completely missed”.
Completely missed was the need for support for tier 2 areas. The
Chancellor has only caught up and listened to the anxiety of
workers and businesses when it looks like these restrictions will
be affecting London and the west midlands. Will he apologise to
those who have already lost their jobs and seen their businesses
slip through their fingers in those areas that have not had that
support until now?
The Chancellor referred to £1 billion of generous up-front grants
for businesses and jobs provided in a “fair and transparent way”.
There has not been a system of up-front grants for those in the
north and midlands, and the process has not been fair and
transparent for businesses and workers. To be honest, it is
nothing short of insulting to describe what we have seen over the
past few weeks as fair and transparent. The Government still have
not published the formula that has been used for business support
in tier 3 areas, and they still seem addicted to the approach
where they say they are in negotiations with different areas but
the reality is something completely different. When will he come
clean about that support and the formula that is being used?
Will the Chancellor also make good on his Government’s claim that
the JSS extension will be topped up to at least 80% for workers
facing hardship? I know this is difficult for the Government. I
see that the Prime Minister is sitting next to the Chancellor; he
thought it would be topped up for everyone to 93%. I think that
is what he said. Clearly the Government are not very sure on
this, so maybe I can spell it out for them. That support does not
amount to 80% for huge numbers of workers facing hardship—for
example, those who have modest savings or who are excluded for
other reasons, as so many are—and they have to wait five weeks
anyway before they get that help. That could be fixed speedily by
the Government, but they are refusing to do so. Does the
Chancellor also recognise that those fixes for social security
must apply to the self-employed, for whom an increase to just 40%
of their previous income will not stave off hardship—and that is
not to mention those who have been excluded throughout.
This is becoming like a long-running television show: the winter
economy plan, series 3. But the twist is that it did not last the
winter, it did not do enough to help the economy and it was not a
plan. We have to get ahead of this crisis instead of always
running to keep up. That is why Labour has called for a national
circuit breaker to give us a chance to reset and to fix the
broken test, trace and isolate system, but time is running out to
implement that circuit breaker so that it includes half term and
maximises the opportunity it brings. Will the Chancellor change
course?
This is the third time I have come to this House in several weeks
to outline additional support for the economy, jobs and
livelihoods. It is a sign of the seriousness of the economic
situation we face, and I will never make any apology for acting
fast as the moment demands and as the health situation evolves.
But at the heart of this debate is a more fundamental difference
on the right approach for protecting livelihoods and lives. We on
this side of the House believe it is right to be honest about the
hard choices we confront and about the fact that there is no easy
cost-free answer. With every restriction comes difficulty, and
that is why we are doing everything we can to strike that balance
between saving lives and protecting livelihoods.
We have made progress, and that is why we are now able to operate
a localised, tiered approach. That is why, even now, in the most
affected areas we are striving to keep businesses open, and that
is why the support I have announced today is as generous as it
is, to give as many businesses and employers as possible the
opportunity to keep working and keep trading. All this progress
and all this hope are being put at risk by Labour Members’
repeated calls for a damaging, blunt, national lockdown. They
will not say for how long, but they have already admitted that it
would roll on with no clear end in sight. They will not say how
many jobs would be lost through such a national lockdown. They
claim that their approach—an indefinite series of national on-off
lockdowns—would be better for the economy. I am afraid the facts
simply do not support that conclusion.
The policies we have outlined today strike that balance. They
support our approach—a localised, regional approach that is
striving to get that balance between protecting jobs and
protecting livelihoods. They will support people in every region
and nation of this United Kingdom. They will protect people’s
jobs. They will support their incomes and provide their families
with security and with hope for the future.
Throughout this crisis, I have always stood ready to work with
all hon. Members in every business group, industry group and
trade union to work through solutions and deal with this crisis.
While the situation evolves and the challenges change, my
approach will not—to build consensus, to reach out to those with
different views, to work past tribal political point scoring and
to support our country through this moment of immense challenge
so that we come out on the other side a stronger, more United
Kingdom.
(Central Devon) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Once again, he has
listened to businesses. When it comes to lockdowns—I have to say
that I agree with the remarks he has just made about circuit
breakers—may I draw his attention to the minutes of the
Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies meeting on 21
September, which state:
“Policy makers will need to consider analysis of economic impacts
and the associated harms alongside this epidemiological
assessment. This work is underway under the auspices of the Chief
Economist.”?
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress that
has been made by the chief economist? Does my right hon. Friend
agree that, to ensure a balanced public debate, the chief
economist or a similar economic expert should join the
epidemiologists for No. 10 covid press briefings?
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition
referenced the SAGE minutes but seemed to forget about that part
of them, which rightly struck a balance between protecting jobs
and protecting lives. He can rest assured that the Government
will always do that. I may spare the chief economist the pleasure
of attending the press conferences, but my right hon. Friend is
right to say that that analysis is taking place. I have presented
some of it at the press conferences, and I am happy to talk more
about it at the Dispatch Box.
Fundamentally, my right hon. Friend knows, as I do, that our
economy faces enormous strain. Almost three quarters of a million
people have already lost their jobs, and, sadly, more will. That
is why a regional, targeted approach is the right one. It allows
us both to protect lives and to protect livelihoods.
(Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
This is the third statement from the Chancellor in the space of a
month, but that is not a sign of good management; it is a sign of
panic and chaos from this Government. None of this should be
coming as a surprise to them. It is telling that the Government
have put out more under embargo today than they gave out to the
Opposition spokespeople—a sign of real disrespect to the other
parties in this House.
We in the Opposition have called for more certainty and a plan,
because the evidence is that we are not coming out of this
coronavirus crisis any time soon. The Chancellor has not listened
or responded, so I ask again for three things. I ask him to
listen and to act; to extend furlough and the self-employment
income support scheme at the rates from earlier in the year to
protect jobs and livelihoods; and to fill the gaps and help those
who are excluded completely from his support schemes. He knows
that that is a problem, and he is choosing to ignore it.
I ask the Chancellor to keep the £20 uplift to universal credit
and extend it to legacy benefits, including for those who have
disabilities. Two thirds of the minimum wage is not enough to
live on, and not everybody is entitled to universal credit. Huge
gaps remain: carers, asylum seekers, those with disabilities and
those with no recourse to public funds have all been left behind
by this Government, with a cold, long winter ahead.
Significant sectors such as culture and the arts, hospitality,
food and drink wholesalers, tourism, transport and aviation, and
many more are not going back to normal any time soon, and they
deserve Government support. Will the Chancellor align his support
scheme with the Scottish Government’s public health proposals and
those of the other devolved institutions?
UK Government support for Scotland does not go far enough to
mitigate the local lockdowns that we have faced. The UK
Government must now provide clarity on the Barnett consequentials
to help us to plan and protect businesses and our people. The
Scottish Government need this now—today—not in three months’
time, not eventually and not at some point in the future. We need
it now, and the Chancellor should give clarity on it today so
that the Scottish Government can act.
The Chancellor’s scheme has been full of holes. Time and time
again, he comes here in a knee-jerk reaction, full of panic,
rather than planning ahead for a situation that we told him would
arise. This is nowhere near “whatever it takes”. I ask him to go
further today, and to work with all the Opposition parties and
the devolved institutions to get this right.
When we outlined the original job support scheme, it was actually
very warmly welcomed not only by various business groups,
including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the
chambers of commerce, but by the trade unions, because everyone
at that moment recognised that it was a significant and generous
intervention to protect the jobs and livelihoods of the British
people. But the situation has changed. The health restrictions
are having an impact, particularly in the hospitality sector,
which the hon. Member for Oxford East () mentioned.
That is why we have taken the steps that we have today. We are
providing the certainty that she asked for, as this scheme will
last for at least six months through to next spring. There is
certainty over that. The grants we have outlined today will work
on a monthly basis for as long as businesses are either in tier 2
restrictions or are closed under tier 3. Businesses can plan on
that basis.
With regard to the Barnett consequentials, the Government will
always ensure that people will benefit from this support wherever
they are living in the United Kingdom. That is why we have
provided an up-front guarantee to devolved nations worth £14
billion, which will help them also to plan at what is, I
understand, a difficult time for everyone.
(High Peak) (Con)
I am really pleased that the Chancellor has listened and shown
that this Government will always support the north. I am
delighted that these tier 2 retrospective measures, such as the
expansion of the job support scheme and the business grants, will
make a massive difference to people living in Glossopdale in my
constituency who have been under tier 2. On the business grants,
may I urge the Chancellor to make certain that the money and the
guidance on how that money can be used is made available to
councils as soon as possible so that the businesses who need it
can get it urgently and help to save jobs?
My hon. Friend has been right to champion the situation for his
local businesses. I know that they will warmly welcome this. I
can give him the assurance that we will work as quickly as
possible to provide the guidance. As I said, the grant value will
be calculated on the number of hospitality, leisure and
accommodation business premises, scaled by their rateable value.
Added to that will be a 5% discretionary top-up, and then the
local authority can use its discretion to allocate the money as
it sees fit for its local area.
(Wallasey) (Lab)
It seems the Chancellor’s much-vaunted winter economic plan has
not even lasted the autumn. His tinkering with the system
demonstrates that he has been behind the curve all along, and it
has sowed hardship and confusion. Why is the support he offered
in March not being replicated as the virus comes back and we are
suffering a second wave in October? Why is he trying to achieve
local lockdowns on the cheap?
I would not consider that providing £200 billion of total support
could ever be accused of doing anything on the cheap. That money
has gone to support public services like the NHS, and people’s
jobs, livelihoods and businesses. I commit to this House that we
will continue to do everything that is required, and continue to
adapt and evolve as the circumstances demand.
(Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this package,
for listening and for acting in the interests of the economy. Is
it not essential that we align the interests of business and the
economy with the interests of controlling the virus, rather than
let those become polar opposites in argument with each other? Can
we perhaps draw back from some of the partisanship that has
soured relations over the past few days, because that does not do
any good for public confidence in how we are all tackling this
very difficult and wearing crisis?
Those are wise words from my hon. Friend. He is right to
highlight the importance, in this House and elsewhere, of our
adopting a constructive and collegiate approach to tackling what
is clearly a national crisis, and one that we will get through.
We will get through it by working together and emerging stronger
on the other side.
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
From tomorrow, Wales will begin a 17-day firebreak lockdown to
help to control the spread of the virus. During that period,
there will be two support schemes from the Treasury as one ends
and another one starts. The First Minister of Wales has asked the
Chancellor to allow Welsh businesses to access the job support
scheme a week early. He has refused, so a further request has
been made to ease the rules on furlough for one week to allow
people to get that support. We need to ensure that bureaucracy is
reduced to allow Welsh businesses to protect jobs, so will the
Chancellor be flexible, and what support, specifically, will he
give to Welsh businesses?
We have tried to reduce the bureaucracy by making sure that we do
not have overlapping schemes at the same time. That would only
increase complexity for businesses. We have endeavoured in all
ways to provide support on a UK-wide basis, as I have said in
conversations with the First Minister and others. We are doing
this on a UK-wide basis in the knowledge that devolved nations
are making individual decisions that ultimately the UK Government
and UK taxpayer will be funding. That situation will work only if
people can work in a constructive and aligned spirit, which is
what I have said to all, and I very much hope that that can be
continued in the coming months.
(Sutton
Coldfield) (Con)
I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The measures
he has announced are significant and generous, delivered in a
manner that is fast becoming this Chancellor’s hallmark. May I
thank him for hearing the powerful arguments advanced by the west
midlands Mayor, , especially in respect of the hospitality industry,
and for addressing the serious business jeopardy that did lie
between tiers 2 and 3?
My right hon. Friend is right that the Mayor, , has been vocal, and rightly so, in highlighting the
particular impact of the tier 2 restrictions on the hospitality
industry. That helped inform our decision to act today, with
speed and scale, to provide support to those businesses, which
will be warmly welcomed in his area.
(Glasgow North) (SNP)
I wonder if the Chancellor regrets ruling out of hand the SNP’s
calls in the spring for a universal basic income. Will he
calculate what impact a minimum income guarantee like that would
have had for employers, employees and the self-employed alike,
and what the overall cost would be, compared with the billions he
is finding for all these myriad schemes? Will he calculate the
long-term costs of millions more on universal credit and other
social security benefits, with the consequences of that on the
economy and society?
The Government do not agree with the universal basic income. It
would not be right to provide money to millions of people who
have absolutely no need of it; that would just detract our
resources, which are targeted on those in most need, as has been
our approach throughout the crisis.
With regard to universal credit and welfare, the Government
believe that the best way to help people is to provide them with
work and opportunity. That is why all our efforts are targeted on
providing that support to protect as many jobs as possible while
recognising that we cannot protect every single job. That is why
we have also strengthened our safety net, with billions invested
in universal credit and local housing allowance and, crucially,
funding provided for new opportunities through training and
apprenticeships to help people find fresh opportunity and a
brighter future.
(Blackpool South) (Con)
Although I welcome the Chancellor’s statement, the imposition of
tier 3 restrictions in Lancashire will inevitably mean that many
of my constituents will be significantly worse off. While the
additional funding for Lancashire, including the £42 million
package, is welcome, there will still be far too many businesses
who cannot access the Chancellor’s direct support. Hundreds of
hotels in my constituency stand to lose thousands in lost
bookings, but, because they have not been mandated to close, they
will not be entitled to the additional support packages. Will he
take steps to ensure that businesses such as small hotels, which
are completely unviable under tier 3 restrictions, can access
grants and the extended job support scheme?
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the money provided to
Lancashire, as it entered tier 3, for overall business support
can be used precisely to help the businesses he rightly mentions
that are being affected by the restrictions, even though they are
open. That funding is there for the county council and other
local authorities to do that. The enhanced generosity of the job
support scheme I have announced will go a long way to helping
those businesses as well, making it easy and affordable for them
to get the wage support they need from the Government to protect
as many jobs as possible.
(Edinburgh
West) (LD)
While I appreciate yet another partial U-turn from the
Chancellor, what the country needs now more than anything is
leadership, clarity and confidence that the Government are in
control rather than this constant reaction and a patchwork with
every hallmark of having been written on the back of a cigarette
packet that we are getting from this Government. I plead with the
Chancellor to consider going the whole way and keep the job
retention scheme going after the end of October, let the devolved
nations know what consequentials they will have—they need to plan
as well—and give the country what he promised. He said he would
do whatever it takes; this is not it.
The hon. Lady asks for an extension of the job retention scheme.
It is worth drawing her attention to the fact that the employer
contribution to the job retention scheme in October is 20%,
whereas under the new, more generous, job support scheme it has
been reduced to 5%. That is more generous and will protect more
jobs and more people’s livelihoods.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to helping the whole United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; we much value the
money that has come forward. May I speak for the distribution
sector, which daily delivers perishable foods not only to care
homes, the NHS and schools, but to pubs, cafés and restaurants
that are closed in tier 2 and 3 locations? The costs for
distribution remain the same for jobs, vehicles and businesses.
What help can those in the distribution sector access as a result
of the Chancellor’s announcement?
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the supply
chains of those who serve the hospitality industry. I draw his
attention to two things. The tier 2 grant programme that I
announced today will contain a 5% discretionary top-up, which
local authorities can use at their own discretion to support
local businesses; they may choose to use some of it to address
the needs that he outlines. Also, we have not targeted the
enhanced generosity of the job support scheme purely at the
hospitality industry, or indeed purely at businesses operating in
tier 2 areas, because we recognise the complexity of the supply
chains that he mentions. The very generous job support scheme
will be available for all businesses in all parts of the country,
regardless of sector, which I think will make an enormous
difference to the businesses that he mentions.
(Stockton South) (Con)
They say that good things come in small packages. Well, my right
hon. Friend might be small, but he has delivered a huge package
of job-saving, business-boosting support that will benefit the
people of Stockton South and people right across the country. I
thank the myth, the man, the legend who is my right hon. Friend
for this life-saving support for businesses in my patch. Will he
continue to review and react promptly to the ever-changing
situation in his characteristically charismatic way?
I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind—I think—compliments;
he knows that he is a large part of the reason why I am in this
House, so he can take as much of the credit or blame for that as
is required. I can give him the reassurance that he seeks. I have
been delighted to visit his local businesses with him, and I know
that he is an enormous champion for his local community, high
streets and businesses. He works very hard on their behalf, and I
know that the measures that we have announced today will make a
difference to him and make sure that his community continues to
be a thriving place.
(Stockport) (Lab)
Alan Gent runs the Petersgate Tap in my constituency. He employs
five members of staff and the impact of the pandemic was already
choking his business. He is not currently paying business rates,
but his private landlord has rejected his request for a rent
holiday, and now that Stockport is in tier 3, he cannot stay
open. The support currently offered is woefully inadequate. Will
the Chancellor now commit to addressing the real hardship of
those who work in Stockport’s pubs, bars and hospitality sector?
I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent—I
know what a difficult time it must be for him and his team and
for those in similar industries—but actually I think that the
support provided already will help him. The pub will be eligible
for a business rate cash grant of up to £3,000 per month that he
remains closed under tier 3 restrictions; across the UK, it will
vary by place, but that should largely cover the vast majority of
small and medium-sized pubs’ rental bills for that time. Of
course, the five team members that the hon. Gentleman mentions
could be put on the expanded job support scheme at essentially no
cost to the employer. Those employees’ wages will be protected
and covered by the Government.
(Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and thank
him for all he is doing. Harrogate and Knaresborough is at the
medium level, tier 1, but areas surrounding it are in the higher
tier 2 category. Businesses have noted that with concern and are
worried about what might happen should the position change and
our tier be increased. The enhanced package will therefore be
welcomed; I welcome it strongly. Does my right hon. Friend agree
that the reduction in employer costs will result in more jobs
being saved?
As ever, I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughtful comments. He
is right. That is why we took the decision to make this a
universal approach, with enhanced generosity, to deal with the
situation he mentioned of businesses operating in proximity to
other areas under restrictions—those supply chains. This is a
universal, generous approach, designed, as he said, with a lower
employer contribution, to make sure that we can protect and
support as many jobs as possible.
(Bristol East) (Lab)
Back in March, the Chancellor said that those in the exhibition
sector with physical properties and business rates would be
eligible for the cash grant, but when they approached their local
councils they found out that that was not true and that, because
they did not open their premises to the public, they were not
eligible. Exhibition companies in my constituency have received
minimal support and are really struggling, and it looks like
conferences and mass events will not go ahead until a vaccine is
in place. It might not offer a photo opportunity like being a
waiter at Wagamama, but may I urge the Chancellor to meet
exhibition companies, including those in my constituency, and
hear how much they are suffering?
The hon. Lady might make disparaging comments about photo
opportunities at Wagamama, but that was precisely because that
sector employs 2 million people who are disproportionately lower
paid, from ethnic minorities, younger and women. It is right that
we focus our support on those in the hospitality sector, because
they are particularly impacted by the restrictions.
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the plight of those in the
events and exhibition industry. I am very sympathetic to that.
Those businesses with business premises will receive business
rates relief if they are in those categories. Indeed, the
categories for the tier 2 grants that we have announced today
will include hospitality, leisure and accommodation, under the
Valuation Office Agency codes. Exhibition and events spaces are
typically included in that, so they will be included in the
calculation of the grant value provided to local authorities.
(Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Business leaders I speak to, both in Arundel and South Downs and
nationally, recognise that tailoring our response to the
circumstances is a strength, not a weakness. They also know that
there are no easy choices, but the worst of all worlds would be a
blunt national circuit break, which would cost rather than save
jobs.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on his last point. We are
lucky to benefit from the considerable business experience that
he brings to this place. He is right that, in business as in
public policy, it is right that we evolve and adapt to the
circumstances. That is what we have done today, but it is right
that we do it in a targeted, tiered way, not with the blunt
national instrument that, as he rightly says, would unnecessarily
cause hardship and cost jobs.
(Nottingham
North) (Lab/Co-op)
I understand that at half-past 4 today a Government Minister will
meet local leaders in Nottingham to put us into the third tier.
We had to find that out through the media, because local Members
of Parliament have not been invited, which is saddening. If
measures need to be taken to protect the health and wellbeing of
our community, we will of course support them, but they will have
a profound impact on our local economy. If Nottingham moves into
tier 3 this afternoon, what package of support will the
Chancellor put in place to protect our jobs and businesses?
I know that it is a difficult time for the hon. Gentleman’s
constituents, and he is right that they should engage
constructively. I am glad that he and his local area are doing
that. There will be a variety of support available. Closed
businesses will receive grants of up to £3,000 a month, paid
centrally. Obviously, similar to other areas, there will be a
negotiation and a conversation with the Secretary of State for
Housing, Communities and Local Government, which will result in
an amount of support being provided for businesses. Of course, as
the hon. Gentleman will know, there is also a formula to provide
the local authority with support of up to £8 per head, and that
money is used to enhance local compliance enforcement and contact
tracing. I know that those conversations are ongoing and I very
much hope that they will have a constructive outcome.
(South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and thank him
for supporting people and businesses across Essex. Already more
than 15,000 people have benefited from the furlough scheme, and
more than 5,000 from the self-employment income support scheme.
These additional measures to support those who have been
adversely affected by the recent introduction of tier 2 in Essex
are welcome. Will he confirm that he will continue to do whatever
it takes to support our country and our economy?
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. He mentioned some
numbers, and that is ultimately what it is about. We stand in
this place and talk about many billions of pounds and policy, but
often it is about the people and the jobs and livelihoods that we
are trying to protect. I am delighted to hear that the 20,000
people he mentioned have benefited from the support that this
Government have put in place, and I can give him and them the
assurance that we will continue to do exactly that.
(Ceredigion)
(PC)
As Wales enters a firebreak lockdown tomorrow evening, there are
concerns that there will be a week-long gap in support between
the end of the furlough scheme and the introduction of the new
wage support scheme. It would be good if the Chancellor could
consider giving Welsh businesses early access to that scheme. May
I ask him to clarify the eligibility criteria, in particular
whether seasonal workers will be eligible for support?
There will not be any gap in support, I am pleased to tell the
hon. Gentleman, because, as he knows, the CJRS runs all the way
to the end of this month and the job support scheme starts on 1
November. There will be complete coverage and no interruption. We
provided Barnett funding on the grants from the moment I
announced them, so that is also available to the Welsh
Government. With regard to the specific treatment of seasonal
workers and the computation of the reference earnings, that is
set out in the guidance for the CJRS and that will remain
consistent in the new job support scheme.
(North East
Bedfordshire) (Con)
In his statement on 8 July, my right hon. Friend said his
measures would be always
“unencumbered by dogma”
and
“driven always by the simple desire to do what is
right.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 937.]
He was right then and he is right today in announcing these
measures. I noted the extension in support for the self-employed,
which will now extend all the way through to April. Will my right
hon. Friend assure me that he is also working with the Health
Secretary to ensure that we are doing whatever we can to get
self-employed people and everyone else into work and back to work
without restrictions as quickly as possible?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The self-employed are a part
of the entrepreneurial side of our economy that will help to
drive our recovery. It is right that they receive support and I
am proud that the support we have put in place—over £13 billion
benefiting almost 3 million people—is one of the most
comprehensive and generous packages of support for the
self-employed. Ultimately, however, his last point is the one we
should focus on. The best way to help people is to allow them to
get on and do the job they love doing, and allow them to trade.
(Rhondda) (Lab)
I am not going to quibble; I think all of this is good and I am
delighted that it is being announced today. However, I just want
to say to the Chancellor that some of the measures he has
announced apply across the whole of the UK and some apply only in
England. That provides a lot of confusion for a lot of ordinary
people out in the country who do not watch what we are doing in
here every day and do not follow every element of the minutiae.
Will he clarify precisely how much of the money he is announcing
today is really new money to be spent in England through local
authorities on the new business grants in tier 2 areas? How much
extra money—I do not want to know about the earlier £14 billion
for the devolved nations—because of Barnett consequentials is now
coming to Wales?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is right and I
can appreciate the confusion. We try to do things on a UK-wide
level, but obviously not everything will be on that level. I
cannot give him a precise figure, because these are demand-led
schemes. What we have tried to do is provide upfront funding
guarantees in advance of that demand being drawn down in England
and the Barnett consequentials being delivered. We true those up
on a regular basis—I am happy to write to him with further
details—but we try to provide the funding to Wales, Scotland and
Northern Ireland in advance of that demand actually occurring in
England. I think that is a better and more generous approach for
the devolved nations.
(Sevenoaks)
(Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement. Keeping a link to viable
jobs is absolutely crucial, so does my right hon. Friend agree
that it is better to keep businesses open and functioning where
possible with support, rather than locking down nationally,
multiple times?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I talk to both
businesses and employees, they say that what they want is to be
able to go to the jobs they love. They want to be able to do
that. They want to be able to serve customers and they want to be
able to welcome us all back to their restaurants, pubs, cafés and
so on. She is right that we have to strike that balance. I think
the approach that the Government have taken does that—it strikes
that balance. The support we have put in place today will enable
as many of those people to remain in their job working hard and
hopefully have a fulfilling future to come.
(Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
It is good to see the Chancellor has found the magic money tree
of Tory myth and given it another shake, but the money needs to
go to the self-employed, the smallest businesses and the poorest
households. He will have total control of VAT soon. Will he look
at cutting tax on household essentials? Will he target the
support for job retention schemes at the smallest businesses, so
they can continue to employ people, rather than offsetting the
wage bill of some supermarkets? Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Waitrose
are not feeling the pinch the way that small enterprises are
feeling it. Will he send the cash where it will do the most good?
The hon. Lady is right in saying that support should now be
targeted at where it can make the most difference. That is why
our approach has evolved through this crisis, and what was
universal at the beginning and at the peak of the crisis has now
evolved into a more targeted approach. To give one example, a
difference between the job support scheme and the old furlough
scheme is that now large businesses—precisely the kinds of
businesses she mentioned—will not be able to access the job
support scheme, especially with its new, more generous terms,
unless that business is seeing revenue decline. That sensible
change means that support is rightly targeted at smaller and
medium-sized businesses that need our help at this difficult
time, and not at the large businesses that are not seeing any
change to their business model.
Mr Speaker
Let us head to Ludlow and . There is no sound, so I call .
(Bradford West) (Lab)
I do not need to tell the Chancellor about the way we are going,
with the economy plunging further into a crisis. The biggest
thing that businesses in my constituency tell me is that
uncertainty is their biggest enemy. We have now been under extra
restrictions for more than 150 days. If we go into tier 3, and
given that the Chancellor does not want a planned circuit
breaker, what support will he give to businesses in my
constituency of Bradford West? Importantly, how long should they
be prepared for uncertainty?
I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that the tier 2 grants that I
announced today will be backdated, so that her businesses and
local authority will receive funding that is backdated to when
they entered tier 2 restrictions. I think those grants worth up
to £2,000 over a month will be of enormous support to businesses
in her constituency, at what I appreciate is a difficult time.
(North West Norfolk) (Con)
Although Norfolk remains in tier 1, the additional support for
hospitality, tourism and other businesses is welcome. As well as
the short-term measures in this plan for jobs, looking longer
term, will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals in the
spending review for tourism zones, including one for Norfolk and
Suffolk? Will he accelerate the roll-out of gigabit broadband for
businesses in North West Norfolk, so that they benefit sooner
from greater connectivity?
My hon. Friend regularly reminds us all about the importance of
digital connectivity in rural areas such as his, and indeed mine,
and he will know, as I do, that the Government are committed to
bringing both gigabit-capable broadband and mobile phone networks
to all the parts of our country that otherwise might not have as
strong connectivity as they would like. I know he will join me in
welcoming that, as it will make an enormous difference to the
local economy in his and other rural areas.
(Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
Twenty-three OECD countries had job subsidy schemes in place for
a major event such as a pandemic, but unfortunately, the UK was
not one of them. The Government’s piecemeal approach to the
pandemic is leading many of my constituents to ask why we were so
poorly prepared for it in every single way. In Oldham East and
Saddleworth, unemployment has nearly doubled since March. We know
now that across the country nearly 300,000 people were not
eligible for social security support. A third of those people
were disabled and one in 10 were from the north-west. How many
low-income workers covered by this new financial package will be
excluded from social security support to top up their wages?
The hon. Lady is right to say that we did not have a wage support
scheme when we entered this crisis, which is why I place on
record my thanks to the fantastic team of officials at the
Treasury and at HMRC for acting with unbelievable speed and
decisiveness in helping me to create, design, and implement these
schemes in record time, enabling us to help pay the wages and
protect the jobs of more than 9 million people.
(Bosworth) (Con)
Last night I had a meeting with the Hinckley business improvement
district and met businesses that raised concerns about what would
happen should they go into tier 2. At the time I told them that
the Chancellor and the Treasury were listening, and I am pleased
to welcome the support for businesses in tier 2, should my area
move into that. In the spirit of listening, will the Chancellor
consider providing a road map for businesses that are struggling
the most, such as those running weddings, events and conferences
and those in the travel industry, to try to provide some clarity
and certainty going forward?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. He has raised
with me the impact on businesses in his area of a potential move
into tier 2, and I hope he will be reassured by the announcements
today. Travel and events are interlinked. As he and I know, we
must work to find a way to allow more travel to happen. The
Transport Secretary has spoken to colleagues about that. He is
actively engaged in working with industry and health
professionals to see what more we can do to facilitate greater
ease of travel, and therefore open up travel corridors and help
our events industry.
(North Down) (Alliance) [V]
It is important that the public health and economic support
measures move in harmony. Northern Ireland had to go into tighter
restrictions on 16 October, ahead of other parts of the UK. The
20% employer contribution in the outgoing job retention scheme is
a major challenge for employers to keep jobs. Given that the
Chancellor has shown some flexibility today, will he reconsider
the timescale of the new scheme and backdate the 5% employer
contribution to 16 October?
Given that the grants are backdated, if that results in extra
Barnett consequentials, of course that extra funding will flow to
Northern Ireland, as it will to other devolved nations. With
regard to the job support scheme, as I said, there will be no
interruption of coverage between one scheme and the other. As the
hon. Gentleman points out, the employer contribution will be
significantly reduced on 1 November.
(Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I am incredibly grateful to my right hon. Friend and the whole
Treasury team for their work, and I would especially like to
thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey () for her engagement on this matter. I am already
receiving messages from my constituents to say that they are
delighted with these schemes. Bishop Auckland landlords will be
helped out by this. I just have one question: how quickly can we
expect these grants to hit businesses? I know that County Durham
did an exceptional job of getting them out last time, but if he
could provide a timeline, I would be grateful.
I know that my hon. Friend is a proud champion of all her local
pubs, judging by all her Instagram photos—I am very jealous.
Having visited many of them with her during the campaign, I am
glad that she is providing them with the support that they need
at this difficult time. I know that these grants will make a
difference. I can reassure her that we will work very quickly to
get the guidance out. The funding will be available on a monthly
basis; a month after the restrictions start, the funding will be
there for those businesses.
(Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The Chancellor has announced the latest package of covid
measures, and we clearly face a further protracted period of the
crisis, with more and more areas going into local restrictions.
Given the regional packages announced for England, will the
Chancellor tell us exactly what the Barnett consequentials will
be, as devolved nations need to plan properly for their own
mitigation measures?
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer to the hon. Member for
Rhondda (). We have taken the approach of providing up-front
funding guarantees to devolved nations, worth £14 billion
currently, and we will update and review those regularly. In all
ways, dealing with these demand-led schemes is difficult, which
is why we have taken this approach, which is generous and better
at providing up-front funding to devolved nations.
(Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Chancellor’s measures will be welcomed by the hospitality
sector in London, although I hope he might have a word with the
Health Secretary about the point of a 10 pm curfew if it is
members of a family dining together. Will he look carefully at
support for the events sector? As he knows, that sector supports
not only private events but many large corporate events. We have
a great number of those of the highest quality in London. There
are thousands of jobs and millions of pounds of turnover involved
here, but because these businesses do not serve food directly to
the public from their production kitchens, they have not so far
been able to benefit from the business rate relief scheme. Can we
look at those loopholes that they have been falling through?
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Where the guidance is
not clear on businesses that are legally required not to open but
not legally closed and therefore do not benefit from some
support, we are actively looking at that and ensuring that we can
fix it. Events and exhibitions are one of the VOA categories that
will be included in the hospitality and leisure calculation that
we use for the tier 2 grants I have announced today. More
generally, the best thing we can do is try to open up more travel
and, as time progresses and we can do more testing, to get life
back into that sector by allowing it to get on with what it wants
to do, which is to put on a fantastic events.
(Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In March, the Government increased the basic allowances for both
universal credit and working tax credit by £20 a week, but that
uplift is only temporary; it will expire next April. Does the
Chancellor accept that, after what we all expect to be a tough
winter ahead, that will mean taking nearly £1,000 a year away
from those families who really need it?
We did put in place the temporary uplift of universal credit but,
as the hon. Gentleman says, it still has five or six months to
run; it will be in place to support vulnerable families
throughout the difficult winter period and is there all the way
until next spring.
Mr (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the measures announced today. As the Chancellor will be
aware, 15,400 people have benefited from the furlough scheme in
South West Hertfordshire, and I applaud the sustainable and
affordable approach he has adopted. Does he agree that the
approach needs to remain pragmatic, with an evolution of policy,
to give more certainty to our communities?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the face of something we
have never seen before—we are all grappling with how to deal with
it—it is right that we remain pragmatic and flexible; it is not
right to be wedded to dogma and be unwilling to change when the
facts change. We will always do that, as we grapple with the
health crisis and the economic crisis. We will remain flexible
and nimble, but always with the same values and principles
underlying what we do, which is to try to protect as many
people’s jobs and livelihoods as we can.
(East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
The UK Government wax lyrical about a flexible labour market as a
strength of the UK economy, but the Chancellor’s support packages
have excluded millions and so many will continue to be excluded
from support. So will he again look at provisions for the
millions who still fall through the holes in his schemes? If he
will not do the right thing by these excluded groups, will he
please release the resources to devolved Administrations to allow
them to do so?
Our support for the self-employed remains among the most
comprehensive and generous anywhere in the world, and is now
approximating almost £13 billion for almost 3 million people.
Barnett consequentials of more than £13 billion or £14 billion
have been provided to the devolved nations and, if the Scottish
Government choose to do something different with that, that is of
course up to them.
(Barnsley
East) (Lab)
In the past six months, the number of people forced to claim
unemployment benefit in Barnsley has doubled. If the Chancellor
is saying that livelihoods have to be balanced against lives,
should the people of Barnsley expect unemployment to rise, the
death rate to rise, or both?
It is exactly because we need to adopt a balanced approach that
we have taken the more regional and tiered approach that we have.
We never pretended there are easy choices here—it would be wrong
to say otherwise. We are balancing protecting the economy and
protecting people’s jobs and livelihoods while suppressing the
virus, in the least damaging way possible. There is no perfect
answer. As I said, there are no easy choices. But we will always
be honest about that and try to tread that careful path between
those two things. What would be more damaging for people’s jobs
and livelihoods is a blunt national lockdown, which would inflict
unnecessary hardship and suffering on people where the virus is
not particularly rampant.
(Telford)
(Con)
Throughout this crisis, the Chancellor has shown himself to be
adaptable, nimble, flexible, dextrous and agile—perhaps it is
down to the Peloton bike or a yoga exercise. I do not know what
it is down to, but those are critical skills, essential for
success in any endeavour. I thank him from the bottom of my heart
for the measures he has announced today, which will benefit my
constituents, who have struggled so much to keep their
livelihoods afloat. I am truly grateful to him. Does he agree
that the sledgehammer blunt instrument of a circuit breaker or
fire break—call it what you like, but that type of lockdown—would
be devastating to our communities and our economy? Will he do
everything he can to ensure that that does not happen?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank her for her warm
words. She knows, as someone who is a huge champion of small
businesses in her area, repeatedly bringing their concerns to
this Chamber, how damaging it would be to inflict unnecessary
pain and suffering on those businesses and those people’s jobs
and livelihoods. That is why the Prime Minister’s and this
Government’s approach of a regional, tiered strategy is
absolutely the right one.
(Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor will recognise that, although the tier system is
only a few weeks old, Greater Manchester has been de facto in
tier 2 for three months, before moving into tier 3 this week. The
Chancellor told the House, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member
for Bradford West (), that these grants will now be retrospective. Can he be
absolutely clear: will the grants for Greater Manchester go back
to the beginning of our period of de facto tier 2 and not simply
to when the Government introduced the more formal, legalistic
tier 2?
Yes, I can, and I hope I did, provide that reassurance. For all
areas that have been suffering essentially de facto restrictions,
as the hon. Gentleman said, we will backdate the grants through
to the beginning of August as required, and that will benefit
many local businesses in Greater Manchester. I am grateful for
the representations I had on this matter from many colleagues
around the House, including many of those I mentioned in my
statement.
Mr Speaker
Let us head up to Yorkshire with .
(York Outer) (Con) [V]
[Inaudible.]
Mr Speaker
We will go up to Scotland for the next question, from .
(Airdrie and
Shotts) (SNP) [V]
It has taken weeks for the Chancellor to tinker with his job
support scheme to get it to a better place, as if he was
surprised by the impact that the necessary public health
restrictions would have; it really prompts the question why he
did not just keep furlough. But the big question today is why he
did not do anything about making the universal credit £20 per
week lifeline permanent and extending it to legacy benefits,
which would have disproportionately benefited disabled people at
this difficult time.
Maybe the hon. Gentleman knew something that the TUC and every
other business group did not when they warmly welcomed the
introduction of the job support scheme, but I am grateful to have
his thoughts. He might also want to have a word with his
colleague the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith
(), who said that it was wrong to give support to large
businesses that were benefiting from this crisis. That is exactly
why it would be wrong to extend the furlough scheme. The job
support scheme is more targeted in its approach, makes sure that
those types of businesses are not able to access support and, as
I have mentioned, is more generous to employers than the October
furlough scheme.
(Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement and thank him and his
colleagues, and indeed the Department, for everything they are
doing. It would take the most churlish of people to claim that
this is anything but flexible, nimble and massive support for
business. I recognise that, in making the job support scheme more
generous, the Chancellor is now providing support for businesses
that are open, and that is absolutely welcome. What steps are
being taken in respect of those businesses that are open and
perhaps do not need as much support—or, indeed, there could be
fraudulent claims—to protect the taxpayer?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why we have
evolved our approach. Whereas earlier in this crisis, when we
were facing something that was happening with enormous speed and
severity, we erred on the side of being more universal in our
approach and acting quickly, obviously, as time has progressed,
we can be more targeted—more effective—to root out misuse of
these schemes and make sure that support is targeted where it is
most needed. As I said, one example of that is all the various
new eligibility criteria for the job support scheme, ensuring
that large businesses that are not suffering a revenue decline
will not be able to access the scheme. There are also conditions
around redundancy notices and the ability of large companies to
make capital distributions while using the scheme. All those are
sensible changes that go to the heart of what my hon. Friend
said: we should target our support on those who really need it.
Mr Speaker
Let us return to Yorkshire with . I think he has got his voice back.
[V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker—take two. I thank my right hon. Friend for
listening to the concerns that have been raised by York’s tourism
and hospitality sector and announcing an extensive package of
support for areas such as York that have been left in limbo under
the tier 2 restrictions. However, does he agree that the best way
to support York’s wider economy is to get us back to tier 1 as
swiftly as possible? Can he assure me that the support announced
today will not be used to justify prolonging additional
restrictions for longer than is necessary?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the best way to help
businesses and protect people’s jobs is to allow businesses to
trade and allow the economy to function as normally as possible.
The support we have put in place today will not be used as an
excuse not to do that, and as the Prime Minister said, we will be
reviewing all these restrictions on a 28-day basis. Of course, we
all want to see our local areas get back to as much of normality
as they can, as quickly as possible.
(Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
One hundred and nine coach companies have gone bust, with 7,100
people made redundant, which is one sixth of the entire coach
industry. Coach companies tell me that one reason for that is
that they fall between gaps in support, being classified as
neither tourism nor essential travel. Please will the Chancellor
look urgently into what specific support can be given to the
coach industry? Will the relevant Minister meet me and
representatives of the sector to discuss their concerns?
I am happy to organise for a relevant Minister to meet the hon.
Lady. I hope that those companies—she is right about the
difficult time they are experiencing—will have been able to
access, for example, the bounce back loans or the coronavirus
business interruption loans to help them with cash flow, and
ditto with the VAT deferral and time to pay. But I appreciate
that it is a difficult time for them, and the best thing we can
do is allow more economic activity so they can get their coaches
full as quickly as possible.
(Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I warmly welcome this package of support. Nevertheless, as the
Chancellor has acknowledged, this will be a difficult winter for
some businesses. When we move into what I hope will be a spring
recovery, we will see the reintroduction of the full rates of VAT
and business rates. Would my right hon. Friend consider phasing
in the reintroduction of those at slightly lower levels to allow
businesses to get back on their feet in these very important
sectors?
As ever, I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s advice and support.
He is right: the business rates holiday we have put in place this
year has provided over £10 billion of support to almost 1 million
businesses. I know what a vital lifeline it is, so of course we
keep all measures under review. Future fiscal policy is for
Budgets, but I thank him for raising the point with me.
(Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
When I previously asked the Chancellor about furloughed workers
having to survive on less than the minimum wage, his callous
response was that they would be “able to work elsewhere”, yet
minimum wage workers in very high virus areas whose workplaces
have been forced to shut will now have to live off just two
thirds of the minimum wage. That is just £5.81 per hour—the
minimum wage level of 11 years ago. Will the Chancellor introduce
a wage floor so no such worker has to live off less than the
minimum wage?
We have addressed this point before, but I am happy to repeat it.
Very low-paid workers will benefit from the flexibility and
responsiveness of universal credit, and that is where the
universal credit taper works. The way it works is that it will
replace the falls in income with a top-up in universal credit
worth about 63p in the pound. For example, a single person in
their late 20s, working in hospitality and renting privately in a
flat in a northern city, will receive about 92% of their original
income on an after tax and after benefits basis.
(Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
I too warmly welcome the Chancellor’s statement today. Does he
agree with me that it is vital and absolutely right that we take
this decisive action to support businesses and jobs today, but it
is also important that we are mindful of the sustainability of
public finances for tomorrow?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have seen the figures
from this week detailing the difficult situation of our public
finances, with the scale of the borrowing and the scale of the
increase in our debt this year. While right now our primary focus
should be on supporting jobs and employment, given the
restrictions in place, it is always right that we have one eye on
the future. We must be careful not to mortgage our children’s
futures, and that is why our interventions will be done in a way
that is sustainable and affordable for the long term to ensure
that we live within our means over time.
(Denton
and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I was critical of the Chancellor on Tuesday, so I want to thank
him for listening and acting on one of the key asks of all
Greater Manchester MPs, of all the council leaders in our city
region and, yes, of our Mayor, , too. It was that our businesses and supply chains
should be supported in tier 2, because we have had 12 weeks of
these measures with no help and no support, and many really are
struggling as we tip into a stricter tier 3. For some it will be
too late, but I thank him for making this retrospective. How soon
will these funds be released, because it is pressing, and what
calculation has he made of the 12-week entitlement for Greater
Manchester businesses?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I would
tell him that we will work very quickly with the Valuation Office
Agency to calculate the value of those grants; we are just
working through that detail. I hope to be able to provide him and
all Manchester MPs with the figures as soon as possible, and we
will of course release that funding as quickly as we have
calculated the values.
(Meriden) (Con)
On behalf of my constituents, may I thank the Chancellor for this
comprehensive economic package? Clearly, he is a Chancellor who
listens and I thank him for that. Will he join me in commending
, the Mayor of the West Midlands, who has campaigned
passionately for further support? He is not a showboater; he just
gets on with the job and gets things done.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am always grateful to hear
from Mayor . Andy has rightly put on the agenda the situation for
businesses, especially hospitality businesses, in tier 2 areas,
which my hon. Friend represents, and wanted me to be aware of
what was happening. I am glad that today’s set of measures will
make a difference to both my hon. Friend and Andy’s wider set of
businesses and, I know, to many other businesses across the
country.
(Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor says that he will support only viable businesses.
Kim runs a wedding photography business. She is self-employed and
works from home and, like millions of people, she has not
qualified for any of the measures that the Chancellor has
announced. Weddings will need photographers again, and Kim
already has 71 bookings for next year. Why is the Chancellor’s
message to Kim, and millions like her, that he thinks her
business is not viable?
If the hon. Member wants to write to me with Kim’s particular
circumstances, I would be happy to see what various things we
have done that may be of benefit to her and her business.
(Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome this statement. It will ensure that the hospitality
sector, even in those areas with much greater restrictions than
my own, can hopefully keep going and come through this, as
opposed to the approach of the Labour party, which would hammer
the hospitality sector, even in areas such as mine, in Ipswich,
where we currently have very low levels of covid. It will also
give some reassurance to my constituents that, if the worst comes
to the worst and cases increase, there is that additional support
in place. One thing that these grants could be used on is winter
heaters and gazebos, because we can still socialise outside in
the winter months. I just wondered what the Chancellor’s thoughts
were on that.
That is an interesting idea. Obviously, for areas in tier 3, the
local authorities are receiving funding to use at their
discretion. It may well be that that is an idea they want to take
up. Of course, for both open and closed businesses in tiers 2 or
3, I have announced a series of grants today and it will be up to
those businesses to use them on whatever they want. Primarily, we
assume that they will use them to cover the fixed costs of things
such as rent, but, of course, it will be up to them what they use
them for. None the less, my hon. Friend makes a good suggestion,
which, together with our planning changes, means that those
businesses can serve as many customers as possible, even though
they face restrictions at the moment.
(Kensington)
(Con)
I warmly welcome the additional support for tier 2 areas, such as
my constituency in London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that
we need to get London back into tier 1 as soon as possible as
London is the engine of this country’s economy, accounting for
25% of all tax revenue?
My hon. Friend is a rightly proud champion of her businesses in
central London. Obviously, what is happening not just to our
capital city but to all our city centres is incredibly sad. We
all want to see them springing back to life and vibrancy.
Hopefully, the measures that we have announced today will provide
some support and breathing space to help them get through a
difficult period until they can get back on their feet and do
exactly what we want them to do, which is return to where they
were—bustling and welcoming us all back into their shops and
restaurants.
(Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Chancellor says that he has been talking to the people who
are worried about their livelihoods and the businesses facing
redundancy, so he will know that those redundancies are falling
particularly heavily on mums. We know from the data produced by
the Office for National Statistics last month that 79% of the
increase in redundancies has come from women, and we know that it
is mums who are losing their jobs, but his Department is sitting
on £1.7 billion of unspent tax-free childcare funding. Will he
use that money to ensure that our childcare sector can support
every parent who wants to get back to work and to stop the
tsunami of unemployment that we are about to face?
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the particular importance of
good-quality childcare, which, as she said, enables mums to be
able to protect their employment. I am happy to look at the
specific suggestion that she mentioned, but I think that we have
recently made—in the previous Budget and before—some changes to
the operation of tax-free childcare, so that it is more available
to more people. She is right that the take-up has not been what
was forecast, which is why we put the changes in place to broaden
the approach and broaden the eligibility for it, but I am happy
to look at her specific suggestion.
(Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the provisions announced today,
which I very much welcome. My constituency is partly in tier 1
and partly in tier 2, and I especially welcome the support for
tier 2 areas, but also across the board into tier 1. Many
constituents who work in the wedding and events sector, or across
its supply chains, have contacted me with difficulties due to
restrictions, uncertainty and a drop in trade. Can my right hon.
Friend confirm that today’s announcement will also support the
events sector and, crucially, those working across its supply
chain?
It is precisely because we took a generous and universal approach
to eligibility for the job support scheme, with its new
generosity, that supply chains of all affected industries will be
able to benefit. There were some calls that it should only be
targeted at those in tier 2 areas, or, for example, only those in
hospitality. We have taken the decision to ensure that the new
job support scheme, with its new generosity, is available to all
employers and all employees wherever they are in the UK. I think
that will be of benefit to the industries and businesses that my
hon. Friend mentioned.
(Eltham) (Lab)
There is no change in this announcement for people who are
self-employed. A constituent of mine has contacted me. Back in
March, she was assessed as earning too much to qualify for any
assistance. Her income has now been revised down, but there is no
way for her to appeal that original decision. This is no way to
treat self-employed people. Can the Chancellor go away and look
at these people who have fallen through the net?
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed that part of the statement; I
apologise if it was not clear, but we have doubled the value of
the self-employed grants that will be paid in the winter from 20%
to 40%, mirroring the increase in the Government’s support for
those who are in employment and ensuring parity between
self-employed and employed. As I have said, that is generous and
comprehensive. With regard to the income threshold, yes, the hon.
Gentleman is right; we have decided to target support for the
self-employed at those who earn less than £50,000. That is 95% of
all those who are majority self-employed. The average income of
those 5% who are not included is about £200,000.
(Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the package announced by my right hon. Friend; he has
quite rightly adapted the support that he is providing to the
changing circumstances. May I look beyond the pandemic to the
economic recovery, and urge continued support for my constituency
in respect of the Greater Grimsby town deal? We also need
broadband connectivity—and let me give a special mention in that
regard for the village of Wold Newton. I know that he will be
disappointed if I do not also mention free port status for
Immingham and the Humber ports.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that we can
look through this crisis to our economic recovery. I know that
his area will play a starring role in helping to drive that
recovery, whether that is through Grimsby or a free port in
Immingham. I am pleased to say that we are making good progress
on the free port process. I hope to announce the bidding process
very soon, and look forward to receiving his local area’s
application when the time is right.
(Angus) (SNP)
The nature of the Government’s interventions in this crisis are
reactionary and there are significant gaps in the support. A
principal casualty of those gaps are the 3 million excluded, who
have had a devastating summer. The Chancellor has used the word
“generous” over 20 times in this statement, so I urge him to
advise me what support he will now give to the 3 million
excluded. Will he do them the service not of telling us how he
has supported other people, but of telling us what he will do for
them?
The circumstances of everyone who is self-employed will be
different. It may well be that they own a business premises,
which will benefit from business rates relief or a cash grant. It
may well be that they have used the bounce back loan scheme, as
over a million small businesses have. It may be that they are
benefiting from the enhanced welfare system and the improvements
to universal credit and the local housing allowance. Or it may be
that they are the self-employed people who today will benefit
from a doubling of the grant that I have announced, which will be
up to over £3,700 this Christmas. This remains one of the most
comprehensive packages of support for those who are self-employed
anywhere in the world.
(Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
On behalf of the Hop Pole pub in Wistaston, Hickory’s Smokehouse
in Shavington, Pillory House in Nantwich, Giovanni’s in Crewe and
Eight Farmers in Leighton, all of whom have been telling about
the difficulties that they have been facing, I thank the
Chancellor for the support measures that he has announced today,
which will have a huge impact on their ability to get through
this troubling time. Will he confirm when the support will be
available and whether it will be backdated for those of us who
have been in tier 2 for some time?
If we are ending on this note, my hon. Friend has made me
exceptionally hungry to hear that roll-call of great-sounding
restaurants, which I hope I have a chance to visit with him. I
can gladly give him that reassurance. We will be backdating the
tier 2 grant support to the time that those restrictions were put
in place, and I hope that will be of benefit to all the
restaurants that he mentioned and many more small businesses in
his constituency.
