Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme

I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will know that the two Backbench Business debates are very well subscribed, so there is likely to be a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches for both. As we are running behind quite a lot, that limit might have to go down further. With two debates, there will be two Front-Bench winding-up speeches, so the amount of time for Back-Bench contributions will be fairly short.

I beg to move

That this House welcomes the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and calls on the Government to examine, improve and extend that scheme’s operation and application to ensure that people who started work after the furlough scheme started are included and that this support continues until the UK’s economy is more robust, so that the goal of retaining as many jobs as possible is secured.

I first applied for this debate in May, but the matters at hand are as relevant now as they were at that time, and perhaps even more so as we continue to struggle with the challenges of covid-19 and its serious and far-reaching consequences. I wish to say at the outset that I will not press for a vote on the motion, because it would simply eat into the talking time in the next important debate.

The job retention scheme was established by the UK Government. At the time, it was a very welcome response to the disruption caused by the virus, helping to keep workers and families afloat during difficult times. It would be wrong, indeed churlish, to say anything else. I know that this point will be explored in the next debate, but every single MP in the House will have had emails from constituents who have been deprived of any support through no fault of their own—the newly employed, the newly self-employed, freelancers and so on. The injustice of being excluded from support has profound consequences for those affected. For six months, some have had no wages coming in, and for far too many there is no end in sight to their troubles.

For these people, this issue should have been quickly addressed by the Chancellor, when the up to 3 million excluded came to light. It should have been addressed and still can be addressed, but it has not been, so their debts are building, their futures are uncertain and they are simply being ignored. Hearing, as we have many times in this Chamber, of the Chancellor’s bounty for other workers does not pay their bills; it only increases their sense of being overlooked and ignored. The words “We are all in this together” ring hollow and mocking in their ears, and we shall hear more about that in the next debate. Now we face the situation of the job retention scheme being wound down at the end of October, with hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people losing their jobs.

My hon. Friend talks about some sectors struggling and transport, in particular aviation, would be one of those sectors. Does she agree that if the Government do not extend a version of the furlough scheme for all sectors they should at least be looking at doing so for specific sectors that are really struggling?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We need sectoral support, and some areas are desperately looking for help, but we also need to extend this scheme in general.

To wind down the scheme and withdraw all support at the end of October, just as payment holidays are ending, will do huge damage to workers and their families, as many will face losing their homes and any hope of financial recovery. Tens of thousands of viable jobs could be saved with an extension of support. We know, as we have heard from my hon. Friend, that the aviation and aerospace industries and the tourism and hospitality sectors are struggling badly, as are our night-time industries. They have been hit very hard, and the Institute for Public Policy Research has estimated that 3 million jobs could be lost, most of which would remain viable in the longer term if support were to continue.

The Fraser of Allander Institute reports that 55% of Scottish businesses using the job retention scheme expect to reduce employee numbers when it ends.

Like the hon. Lady, I have had letters and emails from people in similar situations, and I am sure everyone here has a great deal of sympathy. She mentioned the importance of maintaining jobs that are going to be viable after this is all over, but one of the things most people are saying to me is, “We don’t know what the new normal is going to be like,” so how is she going to choose between jobs that are going to be viable and those which will just be fundamentally changed because their industries are changed as a result of consumers behaving differently once the pandemic is over?

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but the whole point is that we do not know. We need to get our economy on an even keel; we need to make sure it is healthier so that then the damage can be assessed—but what a crime it is to throw away viable jobs because we think that some jobs will not be viable. There are potentially millions of jobs that are saveable here, and I think investing in our jobs is a price worth paying in order to save the vast majority, because that is what the experts are telling us.

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

I will make some progress.

Many businesses are awaiting further lockdown easing before some or all of their staff return to pre-covid working hours. Numerous other viable businesses are simply not in a position to keep staff in their jobs without this crucial support. Indeed, in our own island communities, such as the Isle of Arran in my constituency and the Isle of Cumbrae, there has been even greater disruption with the necessity of capacity restrictions on ferries. With the main tourism season drawing to a close, further support for viable jobs is essential.

Government Members continue to throw their hands in the air and ask, “For how long should support continue?”, to which we on the SNP Benches reply, “For as long as necessary to save tens of thousands of viable jobs, perhaps millions in the longer term.” We say: we want the Chancellor to keep his word when he said he would do “whatever it takes” to save jobs. Let us put to bed this economic illiteracy about what that would cost. The direct cost to the Government of extending furlough would be offset by income tax and national insurance contributions paid on the wages of those remaining on furlough and by savings on unemployment benefits that would not need to be paid. The net cost of extending the furlough scheme across the UK would be around £10 billion, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. We also need to factor in how that would help economic growth and leave public debt slightly lower as a share of GDP than if the scheme were closed down next month, and that is before we factor in the likely significant social cost of not extending the scheme. Without an extension, unemployment is likely to be as high as 10%.

I accept many of the points that the hon. Lady is making, but does she also accept that some of the jobs she is talking about will not be viable when the furlough scheme ends and that extending it would delay the opportunities to retrain or accept jobs in other sectors?

I thank the hon. Lady for her point, but again we hear the argument that, because some of these jobs cannot be saved, no jobs should be saved. We say: let us invest in our people and assess the economic damage afterwards. At the moment, when the picture is not clear and the facts are still emerging, and when the extent of the damage is still unknown and the economy is still in a critical condition, we cannot afford to wind the scheme down in October.

With businesses slowly bringing staff off furlough, does the hon. Lady agree that extending the scheme will allow that slow rollback to continue, rather than having owners make the decision to let go of staff who could be brought back in a month’s time? We are talking about 700,000 people. Another month, or another few, could make all the difference.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. He is absolutely correct. For the sake of a little extra support until our economy is in better condition, while we are still in the midst of the pandemic—it has not gone away—we need to save as many jobs as possible and support businesses in their quest to hold on to staff, rather than losing jobs that might never return.

In addition, the CBI has warned of a cliff edge and urged replacement support for jobs if furlough support ends next month. The UK manufacturing sector has warned of a “jobs bloodbath”. So much of this could be avoided. The goal of the job retention scheme, as the Chancellor told us, was to save jobs and build a bridge through the pandemic, but if furlough support is withdrawn next month, his bridge will self-evidently have not reached the other side. The investment to support and save jobs was laudable, but the task is not finished and the UK Government should not—must not—walk away from an economic disaster that is avoidable. They must not allow events simply to take their course.

Today, we on the SNP Benches urge the Government to go further and do more to save potentially millions of jobs. I echo the calls made last night in the Scottish Parliament and urge an extension to the job retention scheme. Despite the leader of the Labour party in Scotland having said that it makes no sense for the UK Government to pull away support now in one fell swoop, bewilderingly—almost inexplicably—Labour MSPs last night voted with the Tories in the Scottish Parliament against a motion urging the continuation of that support. That is an act of betrayal and a dereliction of duty towards those in Scotland who are currently, and desperately, worried about their jobs and their families.

Voters in Scotland will not easily forgive or readily forget this act of political posturing from a so-called party of workers—a party that was happy to bail out the banks but voted against support for viable jobs in Scotland for the longer term. It is utterly bewildering, and if any Labour Member wants to intervene and explain why the Labour party in Scotland has done that, I will we more than happy to hear it, but I see that nobody is willing to do so.

We are behind where we thought we would be, so therefore we are introducing a four-minute limit from the very beginning.

At the start of my remarks, I place on record my appreciation of and gratitude to the Government for the coronavirus job retention scheme. In Wimbledon, it has meant that 12,500 people have a chance of their livelihoods and their futures.

Inevitably, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) has already said, as this country returns to work and the economy starts to revive, we are likely to see a very different economy from that which we saw pre-covid. We are wrong to try to pretend anything other than that. While some say, “Let’s extend furlough, but in a targeted way,” the questions to whom, how much and for how long remain unanswered.

In July, surely the Chancellor was right to say,

“I will never accept unemployment as an unavoidable outcome.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 974.]

As we look to the future, instead of a blanket extension of the furlough, is the Chancellor not right to ask for new, innovative, creative and effective ways to support the economy and people’s livelihoods? It is not a question of whether we are supporting jobs, but of how we do it.

On the protection of jobs, I have spoken about the arts sector many times. I say to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), that I welcome the recent package for the arts sector, but he will know that most of that is going to the institutions rather than the workers. May I suggest that, particularly for those in the theatre sector, he looks at a wage subsidy scheme that allows them to continue so that when theatres reopen, they will be there? Much the same applies to the events industry, which is a huge industry with a lot of jobs in Wimbledon.

The Government have made much of targeting infrastructure, and they are right to do so, but they must look at the economic activities and train people for those activities in the future. Economic development zones are not a new idea but, armed with investment and training incentives, they would be zones of opportunity, investment and employment. Those zones could be aligned to, for instance, a new technologies adoption fund: 3D printing will be the tool-making of the future, and for people to have those jobs, we need to skill them for the future.

HMRC estimates that the level of fraudulent or incorrect claims under the CJRS to be 5% to 10%— between £1.75 billion and £3.5 billion—so even at the lower end, that money would be useful in extending the benefits of the scheme. When I asked about this, only five individuals had asked for the data that is held about them and about who has actually secured the funds that have come to them under the scheme. Does the hon. Member agree that further transparency would allow more of this money to be, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has said, available to people to extend the scheme?

I am not aware of those numbers, but I thank the hon. Lady for making them available to me. I am sure that the Minister on the Front Bench will have heard her words. I want to make sure that the scheme has not been operated fraudulently, because we need all the money to go to people and to some of the great retraining schemes that the Government are introducing now. As I have said, the investment in future prosperity and the commitment to look at new and innovative ways of protecting and creating jobs is the key, and it is the right approach for the future.