Covid-19 Economic Support Package

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

I beg to move,

That this House believes the Government should do what it takes to support areas with additional local restrictions, currently the North of England and parts of the Midlands, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, by reforming the Job Support Scheme so it incentivises employers to keep staff on rather than letting them go; ensuring no-one is pushed into poverty when they do the right thing; providing clear, consistent and fair funding that goes hand-in-hand with the imposition of new restrictions, including using the £1.3 billion underspend on the grants fund to support local jobs; fixing gaps in support for the self-employed; and extending the ban on evictions.

We are at a critical moment for our country. Infection rates are rising, and the economic outlook is worsening. It is more vital than ever that this Government get a grip on both the health and the economic crises. There are some who seek to pit people’s health against our economy, but we all know that our country has suffered a double tragedy: the highest excess death rate in Europe and the deepest recession in the G7. The predominant reason why many expect our recovery to proceed more slowly than that in other countries is the continued severe impact of the public health crisis in the UK. It has been suggested that the Chancellor blocked proposals from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies for a circuit breaker. He can now, if he wishes to, intervene on me and set the record straight.

May I intervene?

I asked the Chancellor to intervene on me. I am willing for another Member to, and perhaps the Chancellor will follow.

The hon. Member mentioned “a” circuit breaker, but the guidance from SAGE says that “multiple” circuit breakers might be required to bring the virus under control. How many jobs does she believe those circuit breakers would cost?

I was just about to go on to say that the Government’s current stance is costing jobs and leading to reduced business confidence. If we continue as we are, without taking control of the public health situation, we will see a worse situation for jobs and businesses in our country. It appears that that will be the only intervention that I will receive.

It is clear that blocking a circuit breaker does not make sense for the health of our population or for our economy. Government Members need a reality check. One in four people in our country are subject to localised restrictions. We have already experienced a record rise in quarterly redundancies. Without action, we face the prospect of infections rising yet again, with more and more areas coming under localised restrictions and the Government eventually being forced into more national restrictions in any case. Every week of that inaction will hit business and consumer confidence, costing more jobs and livelihoods, with more businesses going to the wall. The question is not whether we can afford a circuit breaker. The question is whether we can afford to continue with a Government who duck taking hard choices until they are forced into them and who seem unable to stand apart from their chaotic lurching from week to week to assess what our country needs and take decisive action.

That circuit break must be used to fix test and trace, devolving it to local areas, so that we can protect our NHS, get control of the virus and start building economic confidence back up again, and it must be accompanied by support for jobs and businesses. We stand ready to work with the Government to ensure that that is put in place, so that no one is pushed into poverty for doing the right thing.

SAGE warns that a circuit breaker is unavoidable. I wonder whether the Prime Minister’s words will come back to haunt him in a couple of weeks’ time as he admits that and does yet another U-turn. The best restrictions in the world will work only if people have financial security and can afford to comply. Is it not the case that offering only 67% of pay to somebody on minimum wage does not cover 100% of the bills that they have to pay? That is something that needs attention, as is the £1.3 billion underspend for all those people who, so far, have had no help in this crisis at all.

My hon. Friend puts his finger on it. It appears that experts are very clear that we are facing an unavoidable situation of rising infections that will not be stemmed unless action is taken. They predict that the Government will be forced into this position eventually, so why we can not have decisiveness at this stage? Why can that nettle not be grasped now when it will be more effective, rather than our leaving this unavoidable choice for many weeks into the future when it will be less effective? I will come to the other issues raised by my hon. Friend about the paucity of targeted support in a moment.

Time and again, Labour has had to drag Ministers to this House to explain what they will do to tackle the jobs crisis, and, time and again, those Ministers have either ducked the question entirely or come up with a short-term scheme that needs to be patched up again within weeks. The British people deserve better. To protect jobs—be that during a circuit breaker or under the Government’s new three-tier scheme—we need a functioning system of wage support, a proper safety net to prevent people falling into poverty, and economic support for local areas that goes hand in hand with the imposition of additional restrictions. Right now, we do not have any of those things.

I am astounded by what the Labour party is saying today. How can the hon. Lady explain her position to my constituents in Truro and Falmouth, where the infection rate is incredibly low? The best form of support for the people working in Truro and Falmouth is for their businesses to continue as they are for as long as possible.

I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she read those SAGE papers. When she reads them—

I have.

I am very pleased and grateful that the hon. Lady has. She will, then, understand SAGE’s prediction that the infection is rising across the country, including rural and coastal areas. Unless we take action and deal with that now, the problems that we are experiencing with business confidence, which are costing jobs and forcing businesses to the wall, will only continue. We need to give ourselves a fighting chance that we can approach Christmas, which is so important for businesses in this country, without the current rising levels of infection. I am concerned about the future of this economy, and I want a Government who have that long-sighted approach, rather than one who lurch from crisis to crisis.

We should have had a back-to-work Budget in July, but, instead, we got a summer statement, including a last-minute bonus scheme that will see £2.6 billion of public money handed over to firms that do not need it. In September, Labour set out three steps for a better, more secure economic future to recover jobs, retrain workers and rebuild business. Instead, after we summoned him to the House, we got the Chancellor’s winter economy plan and a wage support scheme that does not meet the core test of incentivising employers to keep staff on part time rather than letting them go. Two weeks later, the Chancellor was back trying to fix problems with that scheme, as it became rapidly apparent that the health crisis was careering away from the Government and economic support was not keeping pace. Last Friday and this Monday, we had yet more announcements, which create as many questions as the answers

I regret that these issues were largely not faced up to yesterday during the urgent question that I brought to the House, so I will try again. This time I can ask the Chancellor directly. Why have the Government adopted such an inconsistent approach to financial support for businesses in affected areas? Leicester, Oadby and Wigston had to wait a month to get the £7.30 per head in support that they were belatedly provided with. The initial funding for Liverpool City Region, Warrington, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough was, in contrast, £3.49 a head, but not for businesses; that was for covid-related action.

The hon. Lady mentioned Oadby and Wigston in my constituency; the Chancellor moved incredibly quickly to provide extra business support for my constituency. We had a different lockdown from that everywhere else and it worked: we have brought cases down from 160 to 25 per 100,000. That is an example of why the local approach is the right one and why her colleague the shadow Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), was right to say yesterday that what the hon. Lady is now suggesting would be disastrous.

I regret to say that the hon. Member, for whom I have a lot of respect, is sadly confused. It would have been useful if he had listened to the point that I just made, which was to provide contrast to the support that was provided for the Leicester area, specifically focused on businesses. I believe that negotiation occurred through the local business improvement district, the local enterprise partnership and local authorities, to ensure that that support was there for businesses—for his area, yes. Can he please intervene on me now to say which other areas of the country subject to additional restrictions have received funding specifically focused on businesses of that type? No, he cannot, because that support has not been provided to other places in the same manner as it was provided to Leicester. This lack of consistency is causing enormous problems for local authorities.

Perhaps the hon. Member has discovered another area; I am happy to take his intervention.

The hon. Lady invited an intervention; I thought it would be unchivalrous not to provide one. Money was provided for my constituency because pubs had been shut. Yesterday, the Labour party voted against shutting pubs at 10 pm, but in favour of shutting down the entire economy instead. The idea that that is a proportionate response is absurd.

I regret that the hon. Member did not answer the question that I asked him, which was whether he knew of any other area of the country that had been treated in the same way as his constituency by being provided with business-related support. He could not answer that question; the reason why is that it appears that no other area has been. A radically different approach is being taken to different parts of the country, so local leaders and local businesses cannot plan because they do not know whether or not support will be there.