The Chancellor of the Exchequer ()
On Monday, the Prime Minister set out the action we need to take
between now and the start of December to control the spread of
coronavirus. In response, we are providing significant extra
support to protect jobs and livelihoods in every region and
nation of the United Kingdom: an extension to the coronavirus job
retention scheme; more generous support to the self-employed and
paying that support more quickly; cash grants of up to £3,000 per
month for businesses that are closed, worth over a billion pounds
every month; £1.6 billion for English councils to support their
local economy and local healthcare response; longer to apply for
our loan schemes and the future fund; the chance to top up bounce
back loans; and an extension to mortgage payment holidays. That
is all on top of more than £200 billion of fiscal support since
March.
This statement follows the Bank of England’s monetary policy
decisions earlier today, meaning all economic and monetary
institutions are playing their part. As the House would expect,
the Governor and I are in constant communication as the situation
evolves. Our responses are carefully designed to complement each
other and provide certainty and support to people and businesses
across the UK. The Bank’s forecast this morning shows that
economic activity is supported by our substantial fiscal and
monetary policy action. Just last week, the International
Monetary Fund described the UK’s economic plan as “aggressive”,
“unprecedented”, successful in “holding down unemployment” and
business failures, and
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.
Our highest priority remains the same: to protect jobs and
livelihoods. That is why we have already decided to extend the
job retention scheme to December. But people and businesses will
want to know what comes next, how long we plan to keep the scheme
open, and on what terms. They want certainty. The Government’s
intention is for the new health restrictions to remain only until
the start of December, but, as we saw from the first lockdown,
the economic effects are much longer lasting for businesses and
areas than the duration of any restrictions. As the Bank of
England has said this morning, the economic recovery has slowed
and the economic risks are “skewed to the downside.”
Given this significant uncertainty, a worsening economic backdrop
and the need to give people and businesses security through the
winter, I believe it is right to go further, so we can announce
today that the furlough scheme will not be extended for one
month; it will be extended until the end of March. The Government
will continue to help to pay people’s wages up to 80% of the
normal amount; all that employers will have to pay for hours not
worked is the cost of employer national insurance contributions
and pension contributions. We will review the policy in January
to decide whether economic circumstances are improving enough to
ask employers to contribute more.
Of course, as the furlough itself is now being extended to the
end of March, the original purpose of the job retention bonus to
incentivise employers to keep people in work until the end of
January obviously falls away. Instead, we will redeploy a
retention incentive at the appropriate time. For self-employed
people, I can confirm that the next income support grant, which
covers the period November to January, will now increase to 80%
of average profits, up to £7,500.
I also want to reassure the people of Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland. The furlough scheme was designed and delivered
by the Government of the United Kingdom, on behalf of all the
people of the United Kingdom, wherever they live. That has been
the case since March, it is the case now and it will remain the
case until next March. It is a demonstration of the strength of
the Union and an undeniable truth of this crisis that we have
been able to provide this level of economic support only because
we are a United Kingdom. I can announce today that the up-front
guaranteed funding for the devolved Administrations is increasing
from £14 billion to £16 billion. This Treasury is, has been and
will always be the Treasury for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I know that people watching at home will have been frustrated by
the changes that the Government have brought in during the past
few weeks. I have had to make rapid adjustments to our economic
plans as the spread of the virus has accelerated. I would like to
take this opportunity to explain how and why this has happened.
During the summer, as we began slowly unlocking, it was our hope
that the country would continue to be economically open, albeit
with local restrictions being put in place as and when needed. We
knew that there would likely be a resurgence in the spread of the
virus, but with increased NHS capacity and test and trace, our
belief was that we would be able to stay ahead of the virus. On
that basis, we designed an economic approach that continued to
provide wage support to people, incentivised businesses to retain
staff beyond the end of the furlough scheme, and created new
job-creation and training schemes such as kickstart, all built to
support an economy that was broadly open but operating with
restrictions and overall lower demand. At the time, this approach
was not Government acting alone. Our proposals secured
wide-ranging support, from the TUC to the CBI. It was their hope,
as it was ours, that the public health situation would allow us
to keep businesses and workplaces open.
The virus, however, continued to spread. Localised restrictions
were having an impact, so we intensified this approach and added
further areas. As these restrictions intensified, the economic
impact, particularly on industries such as the hospitality
sector, was significant, so in response we altered our approach
to wage support, making it much more generous to employers and in
turn protecting jobs. We also introduced a range of grants to
businesses, whether open or closed, to help them meet their fixed
costs, and additional funding for local authorities to respond to
specific local economic challenges.
But again, the virus continued to spread, but more quickly, and
so we arrive at last week, when the Government’s scientific and
medical advisers presented data which showed that R is greater
than 1 in all parts of the country, that the NHS was at risk of
being overwhelmed in a matter of weeks and the likely resultant
loss of life that would accompany such an event. The only viable
solution left to protect our NHS was the reimposition of
temporary significant enhanced restrictions in England, in
addition to those in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. So
given these changed public health restrictions and the economic
trauma they would cause in job losses and business closures, I
felt it best to extend the furlough scheme rather than transition
at that precise moment to the new job support scheme.
Political opponents have chosen to attack the Government for
trying to keep the economy functioning and to make sure the
support we provide encourages people to keep working. They will
now no doubt criticise the Government on the basis that we have
had to change our approach, but to anyone in the real world that
is just the thing you have to do when the circumstances change.
We all hope for the best but make sure we plan for any
eventuality. We can reintroduce the furlough now only because we
kept the system on which it is based operational, because there
was always the possibility that we would be back in this
situation. I will leave it to the people of this country to
decide whether they believe the Government are trying our best to
support people through an unprecedented crisis, to decide whether
it is a good or bad thing to alter our economic plans as the
health restrictions we face change.
What I know is that the support we are providing will protect
millions of jobs. What I know is that it is never wrong to convey
confidence in this country and our economy through our words and
action. And what I know is that today’s announcement will give
people and businesses up and down our country immense comfort
over what will be a difficult winter. I commend this statement to
the House.
12.28 pm
(Oxford
East) (Lab/Co-op)
Businesses and workers have been pleading for certainty from this
Government, but the Chancellor keeps ignoring them until the last
possible moment, after jobs have been lost and businesses have
gone bust. The national lockdown was announced on Saturday, many
weeks after both SAGE and Labour called for a circuit breaker.
The Chancellor ridiculed those proposals for a shorter, more
effective circuit breaker as a “blunt instrument”. Just a moment
ago, he argued that it was only last week when the Government’s
scientific and medical advisers presented data showing that the
NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed. SAGE presented that
evidence on 21 September, so I will give him the chance now to
correct the record and state that actually, the Government knew
about that evidence many weeks ago, rather than last week—he can
intervene on me if he wishes to correct the record. No, he has
not done that. That delay in implementing those measures, we
know, has cost livelihoods and lives.
When the lockdown was announced, the Prime Minister said that
furlough would be extended for a month, five hours before that
scheme was due to end. Two days later, realising that the
self-employed had been forgotten, there was a last-minute change
to the self-employment scheme. Now there are further changes—the
Chancellor’s fourth version of his winter economy plan in just
six weeks. The Chancellor can change his mind at the last minute,
but businesses cannot. We need a Chancellor who is in front of
the problems we face, not one who is always a step behind.
Until last Saturday, hospitality workers in the north had to plan
on the basis that they would receive two thirds of their previous
income—not 80% or 93%, as I think the Prime Minister said, but
two thirds for huge numbers of them, because of this Government’s
failure to fix flaws in the social security system. The
Chancellor said no to those hospitality workers, only to accept
their demands today. Ahead of announcing a firebreak, the First
Minister of Wales made workable requests that could have offered
support for Welsh workers. Again, the Chancellor said no, only to
U-turn now.
Labour argued that Scotland should have access to the furlough
scheme should there need to be a national lockdown north of the
border. Once again, the Chancellor said no, then the Prime
Minister said yes—cue another undignified scramble to accept that
demand today. How many jobs could have been saved if this
Government had recognised reality and let businesses plan for the
future? Will the Chancellor apologise to those who have already
been made redundant because of this last-minute approach?
Earlier this week, I called on the Chancellor to use the moment
of the national lockdown to set out a proper plan for the next
six months. Finally, today, he has indicated that furlough will
remain for lockdown areas until March, as Labour called for. Of
course that is welcome, but many other questions remain. When
will he deliver any information about the retention incentive,
which Labour has been warning for months is poorly targeted?
By the time we get to March, it will be a whole year since the
first economic support package, but there was still nothing in
the Chancellor’s remarks for those people who have been excluded
from Government schemes until now. What does the Chancellor say
to those groups? Will we face another scramble before the end of
March? Can he guarantee that we will avoid such uncertainty
then—dependent, of course, on the health circumstances? Other
countries seem to be able to plan for the future. Why cannot this
one?
What is the future of the phantom funding formula, providing a
seemingly arbitrary £20 a head to local areas under tiered
restrictions for business support? How long will that support
last? What happens when it runs out? When will the Chancellor fix
social security, so that it stops penalising the self-employed,
homeowners and huge numbers of other workers facing hardship
because of problems that could be fixed quickly? What are his
Government doing to rectify the problems with the £500
self-isolation payment, so that workers receive it when they need
it and are not pushed into debt for doing the right thing?
Above all, when will this Government enable all local areas to
deliver the test, trace and isolate system, which we know is more
effective than the enormously expensive outsourced national
system? The Chancellor needs to stop blaming our NHS, as he
appeared to do a moment ago, when it is his Government who are
still blocking local areas in lower tiers from delivering a more
effective service. Our economy is struggling much more than many
other countries’, because this Government simply will not
acknowledge that, until they get a grip on the health crisis,
they will not be able to deal with our economic crisis.
Confidence is indeed key, and that is what this Government need
to start delivering.
Mr Speaker
We do not have interventions in statements, so if Members are
wondering why the Chancellor did not intervene, that is why. It
is no problem at all; I am just trying to be helpful.
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. The claim that our
action was too late is, in the words of the Government’s own
medical advisers, a misapprehension, because there is no perfect
moment at which to enact measures that have far-reaching and
damaging consequences for the people and businesses of our
country. We should only enact such measures when it becomes truly
unavoidable. It is also entirely false of Labour Members to claim
that things would somehow be different if only we did what they
suggested, because they could not actually explain what their
position was. At first, it was a circuit breaker for two weeks.
Then it was an intervention that might last longer—I think
yesterday we heard three weeks—and then it was something that
would need to be reimposed again and again and again. That is not
a plan that would support the businesses and people of this
country.
The hon. Lady asked about the NHS. We have provided the NHS with
tens of billions of pounds to ensure that they can do the very
valuable job that they are doing, and they will have our full
support over this difficult winter period. She asked about
support for local authorities. We have provided just over £1
billion to give local authorities the ability to support their
local businesses and economies through the winter period, on top
of the direct support that those closed businesses will receive.
She also asked about supporting local track and trace efforts. I
agree that that is important, which is why we have provided, on a
transparent funding formula, almost half a billion pounds to
local authorities to ensure that they can carry out enforcement,
compliance and local contact tracing at the level that they need.
The hon. Lady called for a six-month plan, yet she and her party
have not put forward a six-month plan of their own, and I
understand why. It is because they know—as most Members of this
House, and most people and businesses in the country, know—that
we are dealing with a once-in-a-century event. They know—as most
Members of this House, and people and businesses up and down the
country, know—that in the face of such an unprecedented crisis,
the Government must be flexible to ever-changing circumstances.
It is not a weakness to be agile and fast moving in the face of a
crisis, but rather a strength; and that will not change.
(Central Devon) (Con) [V]
I agree with my right hon. Friend that taking an iterative
approach to these problems as circumstances change is a strength
rather than a weakness, but may I just focus for a moment on the
lockdown itself? As my right hon. Friend will know, the minutes
of the SAGE meeting held on 21 September stated:
“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.”
My right hon. Friend knows that I wrote to him asking that the
analysis referred to in those minutes be provided prior to the
vote on lockdown that was held in the House yesterday, as this
would have helped to inform that debate. The reply that I
received did not provide the information requested, so will he
confirm that the SAGE minutes are accurate when they state that
the Treasury has worked on this analysis under the auspices of
its chief economist? If they are accurate, will he confirm that
the Treasury will release this analysis without delay?
My right hon. Friend will know that I replied to him and his
Committee with the answers to his question. There does not exist
a specific prediction or forecast, which I think is what he is
asking, but what we did provide—and the economic evidence that we
considered—was the context for the lockdown being imposed and the
impact that the initial lockdown has already had so one could
make their own assumptions about what would happen thereafter.
My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do that the Office
for Budget Responsibility is one of our pre-eminent forecasters,
and it is already forecasting that the economy will fall by about
10% this year, that unemployment will reach 12%—an increase of
2.5 million people—and that in the medium term our economy will
suffer scarring of about 3%, which represents tens of billions of
pounds of less economic output. He will, of course, also know the
impact that this is having on our public finances. That is the
situation as it exists today, before we enter the new set of
restrictions, which will obviously cause additional stress on all
the numbers that I have outlined to him, and he will have seen
the Bank of England’s comments this morning that the duration of
further restrictions will increase their impact of long-term
scarring on the economy.
(Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]
I am tempted to read out the comments I made on Tuesday, or
indeed any of the contributions I have made in the past six
months, because it feels like I have been arguing for exactly the
same things from the UK Government all this time. The reality is
that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the north of England
have been dingied by this Chancellor until he was forced to lock
down in England. I am glad that furlough and the self-employment
support scheme has been extended to March, but we should be clear
that that kind of support is not unique to the UK. Countries of
all sizes have been supporting their people, and many of them
have done it more competently and more generously than the UK.
Can he confirm that the furlough scheme is not tied to any
particular tier and it will be available to all who need it at
80%? Will he refrain from cutting it back to 60%, as before,
because that cost many businesses and many employees dearly? Many
businesses are as good as closed, especially in hospitality,
tourism, travel, events and culture, and they need ongoing
support.
I return to the issue of those excluded from the support schemes.
It is disgraceful and unacceptable that there is still nothing in
the statement for them after eight months. Can the Chancellor
tell me why he is still choosing to ignore 3 million people
across these islands? Many sectors of the economy in which they
work are not going back to normal any time soon. I spoke to
Scottish hospitality reps this morning and they are deeply
worried about the winter months ahead. They are increasingly
indebted, and 70,000 to 100,000 jobs are at risk. It would help
them immensely if the VAT cuts that the Chancellor previously
announced could be made permanent. I welcome the additional £2
billion for Scotland, because Scotland has been able to provide
hospitality businesses with rates relief, but we need clarity on
the future longer-term funding to plan ahead.
A growing number of businesses cannot afford to pay for
redundancies should they go bust, so what provision is the
Chancellor making for supporting those who may yet lose their
jobs as businesses go to the wall? Will he extend the £20
uprating of universal credit into the year ahead as well? Will he
expand it to legacy benefits, because those on legacy benefits
are really struggling? Will he enhance statutory sick pay? Will
he listen to Maternity Action and Pregnant Then Screwed on their
demands for women to be kept safe and their incomes protected?
This has been a complete bùrach, but it does not need to be. Will
the Chancellor work with all parties and the devolved
institutions? At the very least, could he give the Cabinet
Secretary for Finance in Scotland, , the courtesy of a phone call?
I am glad the hon. Lady welcomed the extension of job support
through to next year. With regards to Scotland, it is clear, as
even the First Minister has conceded, that the generous support
currently available in Scotland is only possible and affordable
because we have a Treasury that represents the whole of the
United Kingdom. I can, of course, confirm that the coronavirus
job retention scheme is a UK-wide scheme. We will continue to
apply the furlough to each part of the UK equally, treating every
citizen, no matter which region of the nation they live in, the
same.
The hon. Lady also asked some specific questions and I am happy
to provide her with the answers. Scotland will receive an upfront
guarantee today worth £8 billion. That is an increase of £1
billion on the previously agreed upfront guarantee. That funding
is for the Scottish Government to use as they see fit. The hon.
Lady asked many questions about supporting businesses and people.
It is, of course, up to the Scottish Government to make those
choices on what to do with their extra £1 billion. We look
forward to hearing what they plan to do with that additional
funding. It is also worth bearing in mind, as we hear from the
hon. Lady about the future Scottish Budget, that the Scottish
Government have the ability to raise taxes. The Scottish
Government have the ability to raise the funds they need to fund
the various projects they would like to fund. If those things are
important, then of course the Scottish Government will be able to
make those decisions on behalf of their people and be held
accountable for them.
(North
Somerset) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for demonstrating the strength of
the Union and showing that, with the best will in the world, the
Scottish Government would not have the ability to have the
resources to protect Scottish jobs in this way. Is it not now
more important than ever that, across the whole of the United
Kingdom, we stimulate wealth creation, creating new goods and
services using the natural creativity and innovation of all the
people of the United Kingdom? Can we look forward to my right
hon. Friend using his considerable energy to bring forward
proposals in this area based on sound, financially prudent
Conservative principles?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and I absolutely
agree. He knows better than most the power of the Union and has
seen it demonstrated countless times over the years of his
service. He is also right about the power of free enterprise to
drive our recovery. I can give him every reassurance that those
sound free enterprise principles will be at the heart of
everything we do, and ensure that we have a swift and generous
recovery that will benefit citizens wherever they live.
(Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
The Chancellor’s U-turn on furlough comes after intense lobbying
by the TUC, the CBI, Labour and leaders in the Liverpool city
region. Can the Chancellor explain why workers in the north were
expected to get by on 67% of their pre-crisis wages when tier 3
restrictions were put in place, but that that has now changed to
80% once areas in the south of the country are being locked down?
Will he give a cast-iron guarantee to the people of Wirral West
that workers in the north will never again be treated as
second-class citizens?
It is simply not the case that the wage support schemes we have
put in place differentiate between people on the basis of where
they live. All the schemes, whether the furlough scheme or the
job support scheme, treat people equally wherever they live in
every region or nation of the UK. To suggest otherwise is simply
wrong and, quite frankly, a misrepresentation of what the hon.
Lady knows to be the case. She mentions the TUC, and the TUC
welcomes the introduction of the job support scheme, and I am
grateful for its help in designing it.
(West
Worcestershire) (Con)
Last week, the IMF singled out for praise the UK’s economic
response to the coronavirus, citing the timeliness, the speed of
response, the generosity and the flexibility of the approach. The
managing director said:
“We welcome the continuing efforts the government has made to
refine its support measures”.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree with the second part of what
the IMF said last week, which is that over the medium to long
term, we do need to put the UK public finances back on a
sustainable footing?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she will of course know
this well from her own experience. We welcome the independent
scrutiny of institutions such as the IMF—they are helpful in
providing accountability for the Government in our economic
response—and I am delighted that it was so positive about what we
have done. She is also right that it said, correctly, that over
the medium term, we must restore public finances to a sustainable
position. Now is the time to provide fiscal support through a
very weak period, but we want to build resilience for future
crises so that when the next one of these comes along, we can
respond in the same strong and generous way that we have been
able to do this time.
(Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I am pleased to see the Chancellor finally in his place today,
but for constituents of mine in Pontypridd and for everyone
across Wales, his words are a case of too little, too late. I am
aware that the UK Government have confirmed that devolved
Administrations will receive Barnett consequentials in respect of
new funding. However, I know from experience that people in Wales
cannot and should not rely on yet another promise from this UK
Government. The Chancellor will also be aware that this is not
the first time funding has been promised to the people of
Pontypridd. I would like to take this opportunity to remind him
of the devastating flooding that decimated communities across
Rhondda Cynon Taf earlier this year, and it would be most
irresponsible of this Government and utterly unfair for people in
Wales if they are left behind once again. This Government have
already blocked the Welsh Government from using both the
coronavirus job retention scheme and the job support scheme, and
businesses in Wales are suffering now. Will the Chancellor
therefore finally commit to fair funding for people in Wales, and
will he agree to meet me and fellow MPs who represent Rhondda
Cynon Taf to allow our constituents the best possible chance as
we move through the coronavirus pandemic?
I am glad that over 10,000 of the hon. Lady’s constituents have
had their jobs supported by the furlough scheme the UK Government
have provided. I am also glad that the Welsh Government will now
have received £5 billion in up-front funding guarantees for
Barnett—£600 million more as a result of announcements today—and
I am sure she can talk to the Welsh Government about how they
plan to use that money to support her constituents.
(Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement on measures
that will both protect jobs and livelihoods through this lockdown
and give businesses, as they plan for 2021 and beyond, real hope
and confidence that there are better days ahead. With that in
mind, does he agree with me and the Bank of England, with its
forecasts this morning showing that economic activity in the UK
is being supported by our substantial fiscal and monetary policy
action, and its assessment that the extended coronavirus job
retention scheme will mitigate significantly the impact of weaker
economic activity in the labour market?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important for monetary
and fiscal policy to be co-ordinated well, as he says, and I am
glad that we are achieving that. It is also good to see the Bank
of England recognising, as the IMF and the Office for Budget
Responsibility have also highlighted, that our interventions in
the labour market—our furlough scheme and other measures—have
succeeded in suppressing the rise of unemployment. That will
remain a single overriding goal: to keep people in work.
(Edinburgh
West) (LD) [V]
The Chancellor told us in his statement that people and
businesses want to know what comes next and how long we plan to
keep the scheme open and on what terms. He said that they want
certainty. They certainly do, and that is why businesses and
individuals in my constituency and across this country are so
tired of this constant chop and change. Will the Chancellor admit
that he has to extend the furlough scheme through to the summer,
to June 2021, to give those businesses the certainty they need to
plan?
We have provided that certainty through to the end of the spring,
at the same time as saying that we will review the scheme in
January to ensure that it is operating well and at that point
review the employer contribution. Combined with all the other
interventions we have made, I think that that provides the
medium-term certainty that businesses need to plan through the
winter and beyond.
(South
Ribble) (Con)
I am pretty awed, to be honest, by the incredible scale of the
support that this Government are putting in place for the people
of South Ribble and beyond. We have a massive recovery to
undertake in jobs and employment, and this is absolutely vital.
There is 2 billion quid being invested in kickstart to create
opportunities for people leaving education. Does my right hon.
Friend agree that prioritising help for those young workers, such
as those leaving Runshaw College in Leyland, is the right thing
to do and a key part of how we are going to recover?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is young people who are
most impacted economically by the crisis we are experiencing, and
she is absolutely right that they should be at the heart of our
thinking about the recovery. The kickstart scheme is at the
centre of that, providing fully funded job placements for at-risk
young people. Tens of thousands are starting their jobs in the
coming days and weeks, and we look forward to those young people
having a new springboard into a bright career in her constituency
and elsewhere.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chancellor for what he has said today. The equality
for all the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
is good news. Whether we are in Edinburgh, Cardiff, London or
Belfast, we are treated equally. In relation to the Northern
Ireland Assembly, which has been in a circuit breaker for the
past two weeks, the Chancellor has said that the help will go
right through until March, but should it be needed beyond that,
it will be important to have that in place. Can the Chancellor
specifically tell me what support will be given to businesses
that have recently been set up but are excluded from the
financial support schemes and are under extreme pressure for
their very survival? It is good to hear that the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is being treated equally,
but it is also good to have something for those small companies
that have just been set up.
I can confirm that all our job schemes work on a UK-wide basis,
treating everyone equally wherever they live, and that will
continue always to be the case. I am also pleased to confirm
today a £400 million increase in the up-front funding guarantee
for Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland, bringing the
total to £2.8 billion, and I am sure that the Northern Ireland
Executive can use that funding to support businesses in the way
that the hon. Member describes.
(Aberconwy) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that we have
received. In Aberconwy, 8,800 jobs have been protected through
the job retention scheme. Across Wales, 82,000 self-employed
people have also been supported. Indeed, across Scotland,
Northern Ireland and the whole of Wales, there have been
unprecedented levels of support through schemes, through Barnett
consequentials and more throughout this pandemic. Will he confirm
again that this House stands for the whole United Kingdom, that
it is our shared markets and strong economy that make this level
of support possible and that all parts of our Union will continue
to receive the attention and support of our Government?
My hon. Friend puts it incredibly well. This is a crisis that has
engulfed our entire United Kingdom, and we will get through it
together as one United Kingdom. This Government will continue to
support businesses and people, wherever they live.
(Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) [V]
Although I am disappointed that there was no mention of those who
have been excluded so far, I welcome much of what the Chancellor
has said, particularly in relation to the devolved nations.
However, when I asked just two weeks ago for greater flexibility
for the Welsh Government to support jobs during their fire break,
that support was not forthcoming. Greater Manchester and other
parts of the north of England received a similar response. I ask
the Chancellor whether he and the Government realise that pitting
areas of the UK against each other serves only to damage the
integrity of the United Kingdom, and I urge him to recognise the
need for equity across the Union.
There is equity across the Union. I thank the hon. Gentleman for
welcoming the measures, but there is equity because everyone is
treated exactly the same under these nationwide schemes. With
regard to support in Wales, as I have said, £600 million more was
announced today for the Welsh Government, bringing the total up
to £5 billion of funding. Again, I am sure that the Welsh
Government can use that money in the way that he suggests, which
is to support businesses, if that is indeed what they want to do.
(Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
May I add my name to the long list of people who, once again, are
thanking my right hon. Friend for his unprecedented support,
which will be a great source of comfort to the residents of
Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke? May I raise the fact
that there is not just a financial incentive through the
kickstart scheme for the under-25s, but a financial incentive now
for the over-25s in the form of apprenticeships, which will be a
huge boost to the jobs and economic recovery of Stoke-on-Trent
and Staffordshire. Does he agree that this type of scheme is
exactly the way forward and that employers should be taking it up
to ensure that we can reskill and retrain a workforce, who, in
Stoke-on-Trent, are sadly largely low-skilled and therefore
stuck, in some cases, in low-wage jobs?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For almost the first time,
there is now a cash incentive for businesses to take on older
apprentices, given the particular nature of the crisis that we
face. I am glad that that will help to train and reskill people
in his constituency. I hope that many of them will find their way
to the world-beating ceramics industry that he champions so well,
which I know will also be heartened by the extension of the
furlough scheme today.
(Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor is right that the strength of our Union comes when
we are working together, yet the reality of the delay in
announcing the extended support for Wales meant that jobs were
lost when all the Welsh Government were doing was following the
evidence. The Chancellor had said that it was a strength to act
in an agile and fast-moving way, and that is exactly what they
were doing. He also described the extended restrictions as “the
only viable option”. Will he now do the right thing, in the
interests of the Union, in the interests of fairness and in the
interests of equity, and backdate the extended support to 23
October and allow those who lost their jobs potentially to be
rehired and then furloughed?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. What I can tell him
is that the new CJRS date for eligibility will be 30 October,
which means that those who were notified to HMRC at any point up
to that time will be eligible to be furloughed under the new
scheme and, indeed, those who were let go before the announcement
of the plans in September can also be rehired and put back on the
scheme.
The details of that are in the guidance, which will be published
imminently.
(Darlington) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the 1,900 self-employed
people of Darlington who have benefited from the self-employed
income scheme and who will welcome his announcement today, but
may I urge him to ensure that this money gets out of the door as
quickly as possible, particularly with Christmas just around the
corner?
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Those are three-month
grants for the self-employed. The system will open in November so
that grants can be paid in December, in time for Christmas, as he
says. As he knows, that builds on our significant support for the
self-employed. More than 3 million people are eligible for that
support, which is now worth more than £14 billion. Today’s
announcement will mean an additional £7 billion of support to
those people over the Christmas period.
(Livingston) (SNP) [V]
My constituent Douglas McCarthy has been running the bespoke
travel business Travelyard for many years and has seen his
livelihood completely evaporate. Despite the fact that he has
been bringing folk home and providing a vital service in the
community, he feels that his industry has been virtually ignored
by the UK Government and the insurance sector, which is failing
to pay out on his business interruption insurance. In addition to
the uncertainty over UK Government support, my constituent has
had to fulfil full refunds out of his own pocket with very little
support. Will the Chancellor, or someone from his team, meet my
constituent and me to hear the specific concerns on what can be
done to support him and travel agents like him?
Travel agents’ businesses, coming under the retail category, will
benefit from business grants in England, and that money has been
Barnetted to Scotland, so the Scottish Government can choose to
do something similar to support their travel agents. My hon.
Friend the Economic Secretary has previously worked with the
insurance industry and the Financial Conduct Authority to provide
clarified and updated guidance on business interruption
insurance.
(Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor now admit that his premature wind-down of
furlough, which he had scheduled to finish last weekend, in the
middle of what many people expected to be a second wave, was
actually a mistake? Will he admit that the virus does not conform
to Treasury models or his own timetable for it to disappear? Will
he continue to show flexibility? Will he confirm, for the
avoidance of doubt, that if the current lockdown ends on 2
December, the furlough scheme will still be available to all
those across the country, whatever tier of restrictions they are
put back into?
I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. The CJRS has been
extended to the end of March for all people in the United
Kingdom, not dependent on the tiers. We will review in January
whether it is appropriate at that point to ask employers to start
making a contribution as the economy recovers. We will make that
decision in January.
(Wellingborough)
(Con) [V]
I thank the Chancellor for coming to the House again to update us
on the current situation, and congratulate him on the enormous
amount of help that has been given to the British people
throughout this pandemic, but could he tell us how the country is
going to pay for that support?
My hon. Friend asks an excellent question. In the short term, we
are paying for this through extensive borrowing. He will see that
this year our debt-to-GDP will rise to roughly 100%. We are also
carrying a significant ongoing borrowing requirement, as is
evident in the forecasts that have been seen. That is not a
sustainable situation, so as we continue to recover and grow, we
will have to make sure that we reduce our structural deficit over
time, in line with the recommendations from the IMF, to stabilise
it. In the first instance, that will come through growth, but we
also need to make sure that our public finances are balanced
appropriately so that we can pass a strong economy on to the next
generation.
(Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
In reply to a question I asked the Chancellor back in September,
he said that those excluded from the self-employed scheme earned
more than £50,000 and were in the top 5% of all earners. I would
like him to admit today that that is not a fair picture of those
who have been left out. Millions have been excluded who are not
and never have been in the top 5% of all earners. Will he explain
why he has deliberately left out so many people again when
announcing this latest version of the self-employed scheme, and
will he today finally commit to delivering justice for the
self-employed?
The hon. Lady talks about justice. We have spent over £14 billion
to protect and support the self-employed, over 3 million of whom
have been eligible for support. That is more substantial,
comprehensive and generous than essentially any other country
anywhere in the world. Today we have announced that that support
is being increased in generosity and lasting longer, with an
additional £7 billion, potentially, being paid out in December. I
stand by what I said. One of the criteria for qualifying for the
self-employment grant was that earnings were less than £50,000.
Because we have less information about the self-employed, it was
right to target that support at those who need it most. Of all
the people who are majority self-employed, 95% earn under
£50,000, and the average income of those over the £50,000 limit
is about £200,000. I think that is a reasonable and fair way to
make sure that we help the most needy in our society.
(Blackpool South) (Con)
I commend the Chancellor on his statement. The incredible £200
billion-worth of support this Government have already provided
has protected thousands of jobs in Blackpool South, and I know
that those businesses will warmly welcome the extension of the
furlough scheme through to March. However, the reliance of
coastal communities such as my own on tourism in the years ahead
will present particular challenges, so will he meet me and my
hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys
() to discuss
that, in order to make sure that we continue to keep this
Government’s core ambition of levelling up on track in coastal
communities?
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for his local area and his
local small businesses. I know how important tourism and
hospitality is to his local economy. He will know that I am also
a champion of that industry, and I would be delighted to meet him
and other colleagues.
(Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
Only a week ago, the Government told West Yorkshire to go into
tier 3, with pub and bar staff in my constituency told that their
jobs were being completely stopped—it was to be the same for them
as under national lockdown. When we asked the Government to give
them the full furlough scheme because their jobs were being
stopped, the Chancellor said no. The facts show that when the
jobs being stopped by covid restrictions were just in the north,
he decided that they were worth only 67% and he treated them as
second class. We need a guarantee that he will not do the same
again. We have heard his defensive explanation that he got all
the decisions right all along the way up to now, so can he
explain why one week ago jobs being stopped in my constituency
were worth 13% less?
I say to the right hon. Lady, as I have said before, that all the
interventions we have made apply on a UK-wide basis; they treat
people the same, equally and fairly, wherever they happen to
live. That was the case, is the case and always will be the case,
and I can give her that assurance.
(Chipping
Barnet) (Con)
Like others, I am hugely grateful for this massive programme of
support for jobs and livelihoods, which is helping so many
people, including in my constituency, but it will all have to be
paid for in the end, so will the Chancellor set out a plan to
deal with the deficit and return the public finances to a
sustainable footing for future generations?
My right hon. Friend is right, and there will be a time when it
is appropriate to do exactly as she suggests. Given the
uncertainty at the moment, particularly with the economic
forecasts, it is difficult to do that with precision and I think
it would be inappropriate. However, in a few weeks’ time we will
have an updated set of forecasts from the Office for Budget
Responsibility. They will illustrate the future direction of the
deficit and the public finances, which will give us a sense of
the task ahead of us and allow us to have a conversation about
how, over time, to return the public finances to the sustainable
position to which she rightly says they should be returned.
(Blackburn) (Lab) [V]
Businesses in Blackburn have been under additional restrictions
since July and entered tier 3 almost three weeks ago. Despite
agreeing to give Lancashire local authorities £30 million in
business support, which is equivalent to about £20 per head, the
Government are yet to provide a penny. Now that the country is
going into lockdown, other areas are entitled to the same amount
of support. It does not seem fair that businesses in Lancashire,
Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and Liverpool are entitled to
the same amount as areas that were not under additional
restrictions. Will the Chancellor explain the formula used to
calculate the £20 per head business support grant, how long this
funding is supposed to last and whether areas that were
previously in tier 3, or may be returned to tier 3 after the
current lockdown, can expect adjustments in the level of grant to
reflect the greater economic impact that they are experiencing?
I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that the business grants
schemes that were outlined—up to £3,000 a month for closed
businesses and 70% of that for open businesses—have been
backdated for those areas that were experiencing heightened
restrictions for some weeks and months before the tiering system
was introduced. That funding will be backdated, and I believe it
will be paid in cash to local authorities next week, with the
allocations given this week.
(St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
May I again thank the Chancellor for his willingness to be
flexible to respond to the changing needs of our economy during
this crisis, and for the grants that will be made available to
businesses that are forced to close? He will know that there will
be many businesses in supply chains that will not be forced to
close but whose revenues will be affected. Will he confirm that
the money available to local authorities—I believe more than £5
million is coming to Cornwall Council—is specifically to support
such businesses, and that local authorities will be able to use
their discretion to apply those funds specifically to meet the
needs of the local economy?
My hon. Friend is right that, in aggregate, the sum is more than
£1 billion for the country with Barnett funding for the devolved
Administrations. That can be used at the discretion of local
authorities to support their local businesses and local economy
over the winter period in a way that they see meets their exact
circumstances.
(Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
We welcome the news that the Chancellor will keep the £20
universal credit uplift beyond next April, but is he aware that
that will still leave people seeking work £1,000 per year worse
off than they were 10 years ago?
I am not sure that I entirely understood the question. The uplift
in universal credit is temporary, but it is in place until next
spring. More generally, to protect the most vulnerable in our
society, I point the hon. Gentleman to the data released over the
summer that shows that the suite of Government interventions
means that the incomes of the lowest income households have been
protected the most. That is a compassionate Conservative
Government looking after everyone in our society.
(Colne Valley) (Con)
May I thank the Chancellor for extending the furlough scheme to
March and for the cash grants for hospitality and other
businesses that have had to close across my constituency? Will he
continue to look at what support he can give to freelancers,
including musicians, and company directors? Will he consider a
beer duty cut to support my local microbreweries?
I know my hon. Friend is a champion for his local brewing
industry. The future of tax policy will be for Budgets. With
regard to the self-employed, many of the people he mentioned will
benefit from the increased generosity and timeliness of the
self-employment support grants that we have announced today and
before. They will be paid out before the end of the year up to
the value of £7,500 per person.
(Glasgow East) (SNP)
The livelihoods of many self-employed Glasgow taxi drivers have
been devastated in recent months. I note on page 9 of the
Chancellor’s statement that he says that the income support grant
for self-employed people will go through until January. Why will
it not go through until March, in line with the furlough scheme?
It will; the grant will be there for a second one. It has already
been announced that there will be a fourth grant payable in the
spring. The exact value of that will be determined in January at
the same time as we decide on the future furlough employer
contribution, because those things generally align with each
other. There will be a fourth grant, as has already been
confirmed.
(Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I welcome the extension of the furlough scheme, but the
Government have had since March to fix the gaps in the CJRS and
the self-employment income support scheme, which have excluded
more than 3 million individuals from support. That has caused
huge damage to businesses and families. As we enter the second
lockdown, the Chancellor could still amend that and fix the gaps
that have been outlined extensively in this House. Will he commit
to doing that? What is his message today to those 3 million
excluded? What support will they be getting?
The hon. Lady refers to gaps, but as I have explained in previous
answers, some of those are deliberate policy decisions to target
support on those who need it most, which is the right and
principled thing to do. I have also said clearly that, when it
comes to the self-employed, I appreciate we have not been able to
help everyone in exactly the way that they would have liked, but
I hope that across the suite of different things we have done,
whether business rates holidays, tax deferrals, bounce back
loans, improvements to our welfare system or the housing
allowance, there is something that can benefit the vast majority
of the British people.
(Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I welcome the statement that my right hon. Friend has made today
and all that he has done to help businesses during this pandemic.
Does he agree that today’s increase of the third self-employed
grant from 55% to 80%, on top of the £13.7 billion of support
already provided, means that the package of support for the
self-employed is one of the most comprehensive anywhere in the
world? I believe that the self-employed in my constituency of
Bexleyheath and Crayford will welcome the further assistance that
my right hon. Friend has announced today.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely
right: we should be very proud that we have been able to step in
and support more than 3 million of those who are self-employed
with comprehensive and generous support. That was the case at the
beginning of this crisis and will remain the case all the way
through to next year.
(Lancaster
and Fleetwood) (Lab)
This morning, I received a phone call from my constituent,
Hannah, who has a stall on the Lancaster charter market, which is
an outdoor market. She and her business partner Hettie have been
trading for just over a year and this is the second time that
their business has had to close in that short period. She would
like to ask the Chancellor whether traders who trade on outdoor
markets should be considered differently from other traders, in
order that such small, independent businesses might have a chance
to thrive.
What I say to Hannah and Hettie is that if they are registered
for business rates themselves, they will be eligible directly for
one of the business grants of up to £3,000 for every month that
they are closed. We found that many traders in covered markets
were not registered for business rates, which is why previously
we provided discretionary funding to local councils specifically
to deal with such examples as the hon. Lady has raised, so I hope
that, if Hannah and Hettie are not registered for business rates,
the local council followed the guidance and was able to provide
them with support. We are now providing £1 billion of
discretionary support to local councils, so I hope that the
council can provide support to the hon. Lady’s constituents.
(Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
This is a welcome package from my right hon. Friend, particularly
in relation to the self-employed, but I hope we will look again
at some of the detail of the exclusions and definitions in the
self-employed scheme—things like the definition of trading
profits and other matters that exclude some people.
Will my right hon. Friend also look at the position of the
private and corporate events sector? Currently, businesses in the
sector fall into a gap because they have not qualified for
business rate relief because they sell food not directly to the
public but through their clients, and they have not qualified for
VAT relief on similar grounds. Such businesses are a critical
part of the sector, worth many millions of pounds to the economy
and employing some 600,000 people. Will my right hon. Friend look
at what specific help they can be given?
I am always happy to hear suggestions from my hon. Friend,
particularly on improvements to technical language or drafting
and guidance. If he has some suggestions, I look forward to
receiving them soon.
(Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]
In March, fewer than 8,000 people in Aberdeen were in receipt of
universal credit; by September, the number had more than doubled
to over 17,000 people. The Chancellor has made one spectacular
U-turn today, so will he make another? Will he confirm that he
will provide the funding necessary to maintain the £20-per-week
universal credit uplift beyond the spring?
Obviously, the Scottish Government are due to outline a budget at
some point soon and, in respect of future tax and welfare policy,
if that is something that the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish
Government want to do, I am sure they have every tool and lever
at their disposal to do exactly that.
(South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for all that he has done during this
challenging time to support jobs and businesses. As he will know,
this is Tomorrow’s Engineers Week. As the former engineering
envoy, I am keen to see our vital engineering sector continue to
thrive and prosper, so will my right hon. Friend tell the House
what steps are being taken to ensure that the engineering sector
has full access to and participates in the excellent kickstart
scheme, to bring on the talent of the future?
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for the engineering
sector, which he cares deeply about and has spoken to me about
previously. He is right: it is important that we train the
engineers of tomorrow, and what better time than Tomorrow’s
Engineers Week? I would be happy to talk to him and any
organisations that he wants to connect me with to make sure that
the sector fully benefits from the opportunities we are providing
for companies to take on bright new people and provide them with
a better future.
(Gower) (Lab)
This is a simple question to the Chancellor: why does he dress up
on social media the financial support—which, as he stated today,
has been given equally and fairly, wherever people live—saying
that the Welsh should be grateful for what is equally and fairly
theirs to receive?
As I have said before, this is a United Kingdom approach. We have
universal schemes that benefit people equally wherever they live.
On top of that, for those things that are devolved—that we do
solely in England—I have announced today extra funding of
hundreds of millions of pounds, with £5 billion in total for the
Welsh Government, which can be used as they wish to support their
constituents. I look forward to seeing how they plan to spend
that money.
(Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
My constituents understand the enormous challenges that the
Government face, and that we cannot save every single job, but
does my right hon. Friend share my pride that the IMF has said
that our response to covid is
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”,
and that it specifically praised our response for
“holding down unemployment”?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the heart of our approach
throughout this crisis has been the protection of people’s
livelihoods. We have strived at every turn to make sure that
people can stay in work and their incomes are supported. As we go
through this crisis, I assure every Member of the House, and the
country, that that remains my overriding priority. We will throw
absolutely everything we can at it.
(West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
In contrast to some of the churlish comments from colleagues
north of the border, I thank my right hon. Friend for listening
and acting and demonstrating yet again, as the Government have
throughout this crisis, that this UK Government—this one nation
Conservative Government—act for and support people around this
country, no matter in what region or nation they reside.
A fitting place to end, I think. My hon. Friend is absolutely
right. It is a demonstration of the strength of the Union, and an
undeniable truth of this crisis, that we have been able to
provide this level of economic support because we are one United
Kingdom.
